Because of her tear jerking speech at the Golden Globes last night, cries arose from the left calling for Oprah Winfrey to run for President in 2020:
Oprah Winfrey for president was something of a running theme throughout the Golden Globes on Sunday, beginning with Seth Meyers’ opening monologue. He jokingly forbade Winfrey from considering the presidency.
But the trend picked up steam as the night unfolded, particularly after Winfrey’s impassioned acceptance speech for the Cecil B. DeMille Award.
It didn’t take long for social media, and celebs in particular, to rally Winfrey for the job, including inside the ceremony.
“It’s up to the people,” Winfrey’s longtime partner, Stedman Graham, told The Times. “She would absolutely do it.”
Gayle King, Winfrey’s best buddy, echoed Graham’s sentiments: “I thought that speech was incredible. I got goosebumps,” she also told The Times.
Eva Longoria and Keith Urban shared a table at the ceremony and gushed over Winfrey’s remarks.
“That speech!” Longoria said.
“It was more of an exultation,” Urban replied.
Jimmy Kimmel was “on board” with it.
NBC sent out of completely non-partisan tweet:
Nothing but respect for OUR future president. #GoldenGlobespic.twitter.com/h4hkjewu0K
— NBC (@nbc) January 8, 2018
Here is a segment from her speech:
‘I want all the girls watching here to know that a new day is on the horizon. When that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say ‘Me too’ again.’
Indeed. Despite her abused past, Oprah rose above it to mingle and get tight with the titans of Hollywood, including one Harvey Weinstein, with whom Oprah does not look at all uncomfortable:
This is juxtaposed nicely with some of the scenery posted in Hollywood to greet the celebrities:
They all knew. The loathsome Meryl Streep knew. Oprah knew. Jake Tapper called it the “one of the most open secrets in Hollywood.” It would be delicious to see Oprah have to squirm while fending off questions about why she knew about the rampant sexual harassment and did absolutely nothing until it was safe to do so.
That wouldn’t be the end of it, either. A British actress accused Oprah of pimping her out to Weinstein:
In a largely ignored report from Page Six, British actress Kadian Noble came forth with shocking accusations.
Noble claims that when she first met Weinstein at an event in London, she was overtly impressed because he was partying with model Naomi Campbell and had Oprah “swinging off his arm”. Noble recalled:I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me…
Noble is the most recent in a long list of actresses and models who claim Harvey Weinstein either forced himself on them or coerced them into sex. After meeting Weinstein for the first time in London, Noble brought along her “show reel” to his hotel room when she met up with him again in Cannes in February 2014. During their second meeting, Noble alleges Weinstein used promises of career advancement to lure Noble to his hotel room, where he forced himself on her.
Oprah is also a trove of opposition research:
Oppo Claim: Winfrey killed a woman
When Winfrey swallowed new age philosophy hook, line, and sinker, so did many in her audience — occasionally with fatal results. In early 2007, she brought self-help guru Rhonda Byrne onto her show for back-to-back episodes to share her book and philosophy called The Secret.
Introducing the idea, Winfrey literally called it “the secret to creating the life you truly want.” In sum, Byrne taught that consciousness literally shapes reality. “You are the most powerful magnet in the universe,” the author explained to Winfrey’s audience, “so as you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.”
Want a better job? Think positive thought. Want a better relationship? Think positive thoughts. Want a better body? You guessed it, think positive thoughts. Some took it to an unhealthy extreme though, like one woman named Kim Tinkham.
Diagnosed with breast cancer, Tinkham skipped chemotherapy and tried to save herself through the power of positive thinking after learning about the technique on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Horrified, Winfrey tried to talk the woman out of it on national television, telling her that the so-called secret “is not the answer to everything. It is not the answer to atrocities or every tragedy.”
But Tinkham didn’t listen. She died three years later. That didn’t hurt book sales. The Secret sold more than 1.3 million copies.
And she is responsible for Dr. Oz.
So please- run, Oprah, run!
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Run for the bathroom door Orphaned Wind Freak you and Mad Madame Maxine(Waters)need to see a head shrink before you both lose your minds
@Spurwing Plover: too late, that already happened.
She has a past of lying.
When she visited Switzerland she falsely accused a sales person of refusing to let her handle an expensive handbag, instead pressing her to look at one that cost less.
She made up stories about her own past that she told on TV with tears, even though they were a pack of lies.
She hasn’t been able to manage her own weight for more than 30 years, but she wants to manage the nation.
And, she wants white people (who she believes are ALL racists) to die!
If Trump has taught Americans anything, it’s that they should be careful what they wish for.
She just might win an election. She’d carry a majority of women’s votes, minority votes, and progressive votes. She could be matched up with Elizabeth Warren for revenge. Or maybe Michelle Obama?
Lets choose a running mate Hillary, Chelsea, Michelle, Melania, Malika, Dr Phil, Howard Stern, Rachel Maddow, Micheal Moore, Bernie, Jerry Springer, or Maury Povich .
I need to see Winfrey debate Sanders for the nomination. It is a sick, deep seated, rarefied taste… The type that only those who enjoy slasher films can understand.
@Nanny G: Never underestimate the ability to cry on cue. Remember, half those who vote are retarded, and fall for emotion, real or fake, every time.
@kitt: she will need a white guy. I am thinking Terry McAuliffe. He has so much skin in the game, they owe him. If they win, they will off the cow in the first year… heart attack or stroke. Quite natural in the Democrat scheme.
@mmercier0921: White guys are out unless they far left.
Really Oprah is disgusting, she knew all about Weinstein, and all the ones sitting there for the awards to themselves knew, why do they feel safe now? Weinstein is out of power, she didnt take him down but could point finger at the audience and say you knew, you allowed it, you covered for him we all hid it. We wear the expensive clothes, have fancy cars and mansions because we hid the rape, harassment and pedophilia for generations cause thats what Hollywood is all about. Who does she think she is kidding that it is over. But that wouldnt be very Presidential.
@Greg:
nothing in tinsel town is not planned, so how many times has she been in rehab? maybe she slept with harry? so what would you call Stedman Graham in a demorat wipe house-cuckold #1 ? right, they are not married so cuckold would not fit him.
Almost as delicious as when the media hounded Hillary about why she deleted 33,000 State Department emails or why she left the Benghazi consulate defenseless or why it was necessary to lie about the source of the attack. Oh… wait.
@Greg:
Don’t you envision any scenario where the Democrats offer anything as a candidate other than some publicity gimmick?
@M0S #8541:
First Lady.
@Greg:
Keep in mind that Trump didn’t care who didn’t like him. Oprah cares very much who likes her and stepping into the political arena would immediately alienate half her fans. It’s what always happens.
@DrJohn: I bet she’ll be giving away a free car to everyone that votes for her.
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
Jenny Craig for all!
Assuming Trump hasn’t been impeached or locked away in the upper tower of Mar-A-Lago owing to dementia by then, a Trump/Winfrey debate would be an interesting match. I don’t think his natural-born jackassery would get so far against Winfrey as it did against Hillary Clinton. Republicans haven’t had decades to damage Winfrey’s reputation. He’d have no irrational hatred of Winfrey to play up to. (Except for the racists, of course.) His personal attacks would instantly come back on him.
@DrJohn: Its weightwatchers and we keep watching Oprah lose and gain and gain
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/08/oprahs-golden-globes-speech-weight-watchers
Jackassery—an example.
White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller was escorted out of the studio by security.
@Greg: He answered, Yes it helps him, he expounded on his answer smacking the network, the guy then said he wasnt answering the question, listen to the first words out of his mouth. Unable to get anything negative it was you shut up now we have fake news to report.
He was told they were going to conduct an interview about the Camp David weekend. What did the CNN viewers learn of that?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/stephen-miller-cnn-security-jake-tapper/
@Greg: well, he could, legitimately accuse her of being a pimp for Weinstein.
@Redteam, #19:
If being seen in the company of someone of low character is an argument against a person’s own character, you’re going to have problems with a lot of people Trump has been seen with—including Harvey Weinstein. Who do you think Trump’s pimping in the photo?
I’m not sure Trump’s fans really want to go there. The man is an over-the-hill libertine, every bit as promiscuous as another president you like to criticize.
Donald Trump Is Harvey Weinstein Brother From Another Mother
@Greg:
Since that scenario exists only in the mind of those WITH dementia, go ahead and make the assumption.
You do know that the debate won’t be about how to make sweet potato pie, the power of psychics or the best way to lead a life on a couch, don’t you? Also, though liberals are well versed with bribing for votes, giving away gift baskets is not going to be practical.
She has a LOT of baggage to answer for, and it’s not all on her hips.
People so afflicted often lack insight into their worsening cognitive dysfunction. This is particularly true of those who are highly egocentric and prone to externalization.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily so, but there are worrisome signs. I suspect the promised Walter Reed physical with the results to be made public isn’t going to happen. He may present another write up from Dr. Demento.
Well, the President did have his Walter Reed medical exam today. Apparently it didn’t include an evaluation of mental fitness and function, covered by Medicare when included in any routine check up. Maybe he doesn’t have a Medicare card.
Trump’s first full presidential physical exam, explained
You mean like those who continue to harp on the results of the popular vote, even though that has never been how US elections are actually decided?
Like those who gather together to scream at the sky because they were so sure their candidate would win, they can’t deal coherently with not getting their way?
Like those who are down to Plan G or something about how they are going to get rid of the president, even though all their other plans have failed miserably?
Like those who ignore the positive results being achieved while trying to invent (or, true to greenie leftist form, recycle) claims that the president is ‘unfit to serve’? See, Goldwater (the reason it was named the ‘Goldwater’ rule), Reagan, et al, or at least any Republican president…
Given what is being actually accomplished in terms of the economy, etc., I’m not sure what Oprah or any other Dem candidate is going to be able to use as a substantive argument against President Trump.
Although, I don’t remember Hillary offering anything substantive from a policy perspective either, so it’s not like Dem voters really care about practicality – or reality for that matter.
BTW, I think you ought to look at Ms. Pelosi re: that ‘worsening cognitive dysfunction’ statement. It’s a lot more readily apparent with her than with the president!
You just don’t get it, do you?
January 12, 2018 – Cybersecurity firm: US Senate in Russian hackers’ crosshairs
Our nation is under attack, and the administration in control—which may be in place because of it—is in denial. They’re also busily disassembling our State Department and our government’s regulatory and administrative capabilities, while continuously discrediting our intelligence and investigative institutions. Who does this serve?
@Greg:
Perhaps you, and all the other whining, crying, pouting sore loses should accept the fact that Trump, working to repair the massive damage and clean up the horrific messes left behind by Obama the Failure, has better things to do than constantly disprove your fantasies.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #26:
You have lost touch with reality and moved into Trump’s reality television universe. In Trump universe, Walmart has given employees raises and bonuses to celebrate its corporate tax cuts, but hasn’t suddenly closed 63 Sam’s Club stores without prior announcement or conducted a $20 billion stock buyback.
@DrJohn:
Seriously?
@Greg: We dont like your reality, we prefer records on Wall Street, low unemployment, raises, bonuses, defeat of ISIS and return of manufacturing. I am sorry your reality is so dark and hopeless maybe Oprah can bring us back to your vision of America “No hope for Change” is the perfect slogan.
Don’t get what?
Given the level of overt attempts by (nominal) US citizens to actively undermine our current leadership, excuse me if I can’t spare much angst over the fever dreams of left-wing conspiracy nuts that ‘the Russians’ may be trying to covertly undermine the US.
It seems to me that if you lefties really thought this was a serious concern, you would be hot to put politics aside and form a bi-partisan group to defend US interests against this shadow group.
Lemme know when Crazy Nancy or Chuckie suggest working together across the aisle for the protection of all.
Not gonna hold my breath though…
That would be the hack of the DNC where the Democrats wouldn’t allow the FBI (or anyone else) to examine their servers? To try and determine how the bad guys got in? And what information they accessed? And maybe how to keep them from doing it again?
And now *THEY* have ‘grave concerns’ about cybersecurity?
Ri-i-i-ght…
Can we mention DWS’s strange IT group goings-on and her refusal to allow her computer to be examined now? No? Still a ‘nothing burger’?
But I thought we were worried about foreign agents penetrating our systems?
Not if it involves revealing questionable activities by lefties? All righty then…
So, the lefty ‘solution’ to this ‘problem’ is to keep working to oust the duly elected President of the United States?
To do what? Coronate Ms. ‘unsecure private server in my bathroom’ Clinton as the alternative? With her assistants busily transferring classified emails outside of the secure government systems to her private server?
Yeah, that would resolve my cybersecurity concerns…
Is there anyone who spent any time on Facebook (or any other social media) during the campaign that thought the ‘influence’ was in favor of Trump? Really?
I blocked a number of former friends and seriously reduced my time on FB in order to avoid the constant barrage of ‘bad Trump/good Hillary’ screeds.
There were attempts to use Facebook and other media to influence the election, but it wasn’t the Russians and it sure as hell wasn’t biased in favor of Trump!
@Greg:
I reside in a reality based on fact, not lies that I really, really, HOPE would be true. You leftists have been imagining Trump’s downfall since he first announced his candidacy and, like your 2016 election and global warming predictions, have been consistently WRONG. If Obama’s abuse of the IRS and DOJ couldn’t beat Trump, imagine your chances once Trump removes those illegal weapons from your repertoire.
What you really need is a candidate and Oprah, the psychic-following, race-baiting, housefrau-pandering magazine peddler is NOT a viable candidate. You leftists need to stop relying on celebrity and cheap gimmicks and start cultivating candidates that can offer hope for the American people.
@Jay:
They couldn’t. That would expose what Brazille revealed, that Hillary had full control of the DNC and manipulated the primary system to benefit herself.
We have yet to see one single example of a Russian ad supporting Trump. What we are asked to do is simply take the word of known, proven liars. I think I’ll do something else.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #31:
I guess we must not have been looking very hard. Congress released numerous examples of Facebook ads targeting selected audiences that were paid for by identified Russian fronts. The Washington Post assembled a number of them in an November 1, 2017 article titled The Facebook ads Russians targeted at different groups. Scroll down the page. Do any of them look or sound familiar?
Narrow targeting of specific groups in critical locations was what made their effort so effective. They simply used Facebook’s preexisting advertising targeting system. Facebook has complex and highly accurate profiles of all of their users, based on their internet behavior. Every click you make and page you look at tells them a little more about you.
UsHadrons is a compilation of Russian-created social media accounts that were identified and closed down on various U.S. social media networks—Facebook, Twitter, etc. Click on read more at the bottom left of any one of them to see examples of what was being posted through the account.
RBC, a Russian news site, published a lengthy article this past October that details how the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg endeavored to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It was a very impressive effort: Investigation of RBC: how the “troll factory” worked in the US elections
If you’re using the Google Chrome browser, right-click your mouse anywhere on the page and select “translate to English” from the menu. The entire article will be translated.
@Greg:
Wait… what? I thought the Russians were supposed to be tricking us into voting for Trump… all those ads are FACT. What is the subversive nature?
I can’t specifically say I remember seeing any of them, but I was already aware that Hillary lied about Benghazi over the coffins of those she got killed there with the attitude, “What difference does it make”, that Muslim countries have made enormous contributions to the Clinton Foundation, that the military disliked Hillary (and Obama), that BLM attacks the police or that illegal immigration is a problem.
I guess you didn’t notice the ads supporting Bernie, promoting BLM or attacking Trump. Tell me, WHO were the nefarious Russians favoring? Thanks for the information, because you prove that the Russians had NO influence on the elections through ads because if they support EVERYTHING and attack EVERYTHING, the effect is a net zero.
Liberal propaganda is far more corrosive to the mentality of citizens.
Have you ever actually done that? Good luck understanding the translation.
Winfrey and Waters or just make that Ursula and Meleificent
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #34:
They identified the useful bullshit already planted in their target audiences’ heads that could be promoted and reinforced to further their objectives. Facebook’s ad targeting algorithms allowed them to focus their messages as narrowly as people having specific profile characteristics living in specific voting districts and precincts. By so doing, they may have leveraged an electoral college for a candidate who was nearly 3 million votes short in the popular election. Trumps electoral college win required only a few thousand additional votes in a few critical locations. The Russian hacking and social media strategy was to nudge targeted voters in that direction.
Trump promoted the “fact” that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. He publicly tagged Clinton as “Crooked Hillary,” despite the fact that there’s never been credible evidence that’s been sufficient to charge her, let alone support a conviction. Many of the things the right uncritically accepts as “fact” are nothing more than endlessly repeated propaganda memes that have been poured into their heads by their propaganda outlets. Trump’s campaign was nothing but an exploitation of the resultant attitude. He won the election by telling lies and by calculated defamation of character—the same strategy he used earlier against the other republican contenders for the nomination. He also appears to have had a major assist in all of that from Russian hackers and coordinated Wikileaks efforts. There’s presently a very serious investigation underway to determine if people in his campaign colluded with the Russians in that effort—an investigation that his administration is doing everything they can to discredit and derail.
@Greg: Again collusion is not a crime. No one has been indicted with anything related to the election campaign of 2016. Your hatred does not rise to the level of fact. Your frustration will only get worse on this issue. We saw the same level of left wing hysteria during the Valarie Plame debacle.
No one went to jail for leaking anything. Time to grow up. Reality is calling.
Reality is something that many on the right seem to have parted company with a long time ago.
My reality involves wondering about things like how Jared Kushner can have been handed a Top Secret security clearance, without a background check, and while holding no official government position. “Senior Advisor to the President” has become a title conferred on a frat boy. The man is a walking, talking conflict of interest.
@Greg:
That Hillary introduced and which Obama would not answer. Remember any of that? No, I thought not.
If the Russians buy an ad that states that Hillary lied about Benghazi, that is information most intelligent people already had. If they buy an ad stating illegal immigration is bad for the nation, that ain’t news, nor is it false. If the Russians buy an ad that states BLM is targeting and promoting the murder of cops, that is merely stating a fact. You are still not showing the damage they did or how they altered any thinking. Do you think running an ad with an X through Trump’s face is changing any minds? That only feeds the appetite of the ignorant. You failed at making your point… MISERABLY.
She is crooked; always has been. When the director of the FBI pens his exoneration of Hillary before any investigation or she has been interviewed, it is a pretty safe bet she won’t be charged with anything by the FBI. That, however, is not a resounding endorsement of innocence, only proof of total corruption.
You DO still believe Hillary deleted 33,000 emails that had been requested to be turned over, obliterating them with Bleachbit, because they were about funerals, weddings and yoga… right? Yeah, you lack the credibility to make your argument.
You and other liberal crybabies still cling to a fantasy that some liberal miracle is going to be farted from a unicorn’s ass and save you from Trump and the success he is bringing to America. That is some reality you cling to.
So, Greg, if our nation is under attack, why do the Democrat members of Congress keep running in circles looking for more poo to fling at our duly elected president while “continually discrediting” him, rather than spending that time developing and offering a solution? Who does this serve?
Our intelligence and investigative institutions seem to be doing a fine job of discrediting themselves with the administration doing nothing more than shining a little light on their past grossly partisan behavior.
There were/are plenty of home grown anti-Trump ‘trolls’ in the US.
Shall we talk about the fact that most major universities have to spend extra money on security or outright refuse to allow a conservative speaker on campus?
Shall we talk about violence in the streets, complete with fires and property destruction because the left can’t deal with the results of the election?
Shall we talk about the on-line ‘trolls’ who continue to assert Hillary and her minions did nothing wrong, even though it has now been shown that she DID have classified emails on her private system, Huma lied about backing those emails up to her hubby’s laptop, etc., etc.
Businesses that are even remotely assumed to have any support for Trump are harassed, threatened and run out of town by lefties. Can you mention a single lefty business that suffered similar treatment by conservatives because they supported Hillary?
Talk to me again about the ‘influences’ surrounding the election.
Oh, yeah – and remember it was Hillary’s team that hand-picked Trump to run against…
Wait. Wouldn’t that mean that the Hillary campaign could have been colluding with the Russians to make him the candidate, and then she thought she could defeat him? Hmmm…
Which is why lefties always want to debate on the ‘facts’ rather than shout down the other viewpoint?
The next time that happens will be the first.
Again, I see far more of the “endlessly repeated propaganda memes” supporting the lefty beliefs than I do the right.
Let’s talk about the politically biased removal of memes/videos/posts/tweets of conservative leaning authors compared to liberal views? Has there been a left-leaning post of any kind anywhere that was removed/blocked for ‘violating the terms of service’?
“Reality” – You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Disagreeing with the leftist hallucinations that they pretend are reality is NOT the same as parting company with what normal people see as reality. (How many possible genders are we up to now? Google will accommodate ‘furries’ and ‘dragons’ as employees, but can’t abide a conservative?)
Do you really want to go there on whose version of reality might be more reality based?
Reality is that so far, there is much more evidence that Hillary and her hangers-on lied under oath (those that were required to give their testimony under oath – Madam Hillary wasn’t) about emails, violated FOIA requirements, deleted items that were under subpoena and more than there is for any ‘collusion’ by the Trump campaign.
If it wasn’t for a small cabal of highly partisan hacks in the DOJ/FBI, her pantsuits would be orange right now. Having your supporters manipulate the system to declare you are ‘not guilty’ (actually, guilty, but not guilty enough to suffer any consequences) is different than being innocent.
There have been endless investigations, and there’s all this evidence of Crooked Hillary’s many, many crimes, yet somehow no charges are ever filed. When that’s pointed out, people suddenly begin babbling about Obama’s shadow government.
You don’t know how much evidence there might be for collusion—or for related acts that actually are statutory crimes—because Robert Mueller is running a very tight ship. He’s not playing politics with an endless daily stream of leaks, rumors, accusations, and allegations. He’s quietly and methodically gathering sworn testimony and collecting evidence. If it all adds up to something in the end, there will be charges. If it doesn’t, that will also be reported.
I’m far more inclined to trust the dedicated career professionals in our DoJ and FBI than the pack of slick shysters and lying weasels that comprise the inner circle of the Trump administration.
@Greg:
And there were endless uses of the 5th to protect her co-criminals, immunity granted (from what?), destruction of evidence allowed, stonewalling, lying and, of course, Hillary’s exoneration written before the investigation and interviews. But, we are seeing all that unravel and you may yet see the charges you need to confirm her guilt in your mind filed.
Again, anyone that still believes Hillary obliterated 33,000 emails requested as evidence on her word that they were ALL about yoga, weddings or funerals has no credibility. Nothing such a person says, until they renounce THAT stupidity, has any possible hope of being serious or fact. That is far beyond the realm of possibility. But, you keep clinging to your liberal fantasies.
As we have seen, he leaks what benefits his efforts. Therefore, he has NOTHING to support your delusions because there IS nothing.
The dedicated professionals are on the side of justice and are sick of the liberal-infected partisans who protected Hillary, Obama, Holder and Lynch. This scum is being rooted out and purged. What will soon remain will be those who will pursue justice regardless of politics. The lying weasels put the partisans in place and gave them carte blanc to protect liberals while attacking Republicans. Obama’s GESTAPO-lite is being replaced by the traditional FBI.
Yeah, I realize there’s that annoying 5th Amendment to the Constitution that eliminates any requirement that people answer questions designed to self-incriminate—among other things. Whatever were the Founding Fathers thinking?
Fortunately Jeff Sessions has a work-around for relieving people of their property without due process. Sessions announces new position to police asset forfeiture. Along the same lines, we could cite Trump & Co’s history of eminent domain abuse.
Do you suppose waterboarding might somehow be misconstrued as a means of compelling people to testify against themselves? Surely not.
The point being, Trump’s followers are anything but the guardians of Constitutional law. Expediency is all they care about. They’ll trash the reputations of our nation’s intelligence and law enforcement institutions in the blink of an eye to cover themselves and to further their own ends. They’re doing so on a regular basis.
@Greg: You refuse to see facts or you only listen to media sources that reinforce your prejudices. Investigations are now revealing how corrupt the investigation into Hillary’s email hijinx and Uranium One were. I suggest you stop trying to convince yourself of Hillary’s infallibility and await the outcome of HONEST investigations (for a change).
My conclusion that Donald Trump is monumentally incompetent and that anyone who isn’t as dumb as a doorknob should be able to figure this out for themselves is not indicative of any corresponding belief that Hillary Clinton is infallible. They’re two different people, presenting two different sets of issues. Some things they have in common. Both are opportunistic.
Evidence?
Has it or has it not been proven that there actually were classified emails on Hillary’s system?
Has it, or has it not been proven that Huma lied to the FBI about the above?
Did, or did not Comey’s original draft statement say that Hillary had been ‘grossly negligent’ (IE, the ‘go to jail, go directly to jail standard) before the documented anti-Trumpers and Hillary donors on the team edited it down to wording from which she would suffer no consequences?
Turn the situation around…
Let’s say someone on Mueller’s team drafts a memo stating yes, Trump directly colluded with Russian officials with the intent of interfering with the 2016 election.
Then let’s say that a group of ‘dedicated career professionals’, who just happened to have exchanged anti-Hillary emails and made campaign contributions to Trump later reword the memo before release to state “Certain members of the campaign may have been ‘extremely careless’ about the timing of meeting with Russian citizens, but there was no intent to influence the outcome of the election”.
Now let’s say after Mueller’s team issues a formal exoneration of President Trump, based on the revised wording, but later on, the original memo is leaked, along with the anti-Hillary stance of the team that did the rewording.
I’m guessing you would be less sanguine about those circumstances…
You mean other than the leak on NBC News that Mueller was going to indict Michael Flynn and the one on CNN about Paul Manafort? And the fact that he “improperly obtained thousands of emails from the General Services Administration” (Newsweek 12/17).
Yeah, sounds like a very tight ship with no politics or funny business.
Fun Fact: Do you realize it’s been about the same amount of time since Mueller started his investigation until now as it was from the day of the Benghazi attack until Hillary stated “What difference at this point does it make?”
And almost twice as long since any collusion (PS, Greg, neither you nor any other lefties have any evidence of it either, or you would be shouting it from the rooftops) would have actually taken place.
What do you think the typical lefty reaction would be should Trump hold a press conference about collusion during the run-up to the election and repeat Hillary’s bon mot?
Sure – it’s not like any of them are under investigation themselves (Newsweek 10/31) or were removed from the team for bias (Strozyk, Ohr).
‘Professional’…Once again you appear to be using a different meaning for some words than most people think they mean.
Yeah, let’s talk about that. If you are afraid your testimony would lead to criminal charges against you and therefore refuse to provide said testimony, just what are they afraid their statements might reveal?
You’re the one on another thread a long time ago that said “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”.
Ipso Facto, since they are trying to hide what they did (or what they know), they must have something to fear.
Then again, Trump’s team could just take a page out of that playbook and all start taking the 5th, since you seem to think that’s an acceptable response.
@Greg:
Of course, that conclusion is based on prejudice and ideology because he has proven himself to be supremely competent, achieving more in one year than Obama (the genius) did in eight. MY conclusion is that anyone that believes Hillary suddenly decided to delete, erase, destroy, obliterate 33,000 emails, coincidentally at the same moment they were requested as evidence, because she didn’t want to world to know about her wedding, funeral and yoga past would not be capable of OPERATING a doorknob.
Your way-over-the-top declaration of incompetence is hate-driven, something that has blinded you liberals to the potential for the benefit to so many Americans by Trump’s policies and agenda. Your evaluation is as fact-based as your forlorn hope and fantasy imagination that Trump colluded with Russians and will be removed from office, with some liberal idiot (the likes of which you are so attracted to) will take his place.
@Jay:
Well, THAT would be wrong, but it’s OK to do that when the person is deemed innocent by those salivating at the thought of her being President, have no principles or morals and believe the ends justify the means.
They get paid, so they are professionals. Note the absence of liberal outrage over the NPR reporter equating ICE agents with the GESTAPO.
Hillary’s underlings take the 5th because they don’t want to commit perjury and they don’t want to tell the truth, which would contradict Hillary’s testimony. Oddly, folks like Greg can’t see the contrast between Hillary’s team which either refuses to show up and testify or takes the 5th and Trump’s team who cooperates fully with any and all questions.
@Greg: 23
completely untrue. I’ve been on medicare for 12 years and have had a check up at least every 6 months and IT HAS NEVER INCLUDED A MENTAL EVALUATION OR FUNCTION. NEVER. So you should be aware that you totally lied.
@Redteam: Taking Gregs sentence apart it is mostly true, Medicare will cover all costs of the diagnosis of dementia , we took my sweeties mum to a neurologist and the testing by the specialist was covered, it was a confirmation of her GPs simple oral test. Most often the patient or their family members will first express a concern, you may have been given some of the questions without even realizing it.
You have to know how I dislike agreeing with Greg, but I am sure Trump as you answered the test questions perfectly.