Why Donna Brazile needed to be there for me to take this "insisted without evidence" business seriously: "Interim Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile is coming under fire Monday after a newly released WikiLeaks email indicated she gave Hillary Clinton’s team an explicit heads-up about debate questions last spring." (October 31, 2016, CBS News).
From the new NYT article: "Pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris’s longtime friendship with a senior executive whose portfolio includes ABC News, Mr. Trump insisted without evidence that Ms. Harris was 'going to get the questions in advance.' The network released agreed-upon rules that no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign."
How much "evidence" in advance does Trump need before he's entitled to waft his suspicion about something that, if it happens, will be done surreptitiously and where it is something has happened before and, when it happened we only found out after the fact thanks to... of all things... WikiLeaks?
Yes, you can criticize Trump's rhetoric. It's not precisely correct to assert that Harris is "going to get the questions in advance." But we understand what he means. We don't (or shouldn't) trust ABC not to do something like what happened in 2016. And Trump wants to heighten our mistrust and perhaps intimidate ABC in case it's tempted to violate its agreement to keep the questions and topics secret.
Of course, we all expect ABC to frame questions that will not trap or unduly challenge Kamala Harris. The only check on that behavior is that at some point, the coddling is obvious and invites mockery.
पोस्ट्स
१८३ टिप्पण्या:
Huh. That's probably one of the conditions for her participation, just like last week's "interview" with her CNN handlers.
it will be interesting to see the difference in questions asked each of the candidates..
I'm assuming, that Harris' will be multiple choice; and Trump's will be koans
They have to prove otherwize they will be fair
The crazy thing is, can't the candidate anticipate the possible subject of the questions? I mean there are important highlighted issues of the day. The economy, inflation, Ukraine, the Israel war, fracking, energy production, tax on unrealized capital gains. Is Kamala such a dingbat she can't anticipate what is coming? Hillary too??
https://www.newsbusters.org/journalists/david-muir
Come on, Althouse. You're not supposed to notice these things. And if you've ever noticed, you're damn sure not supposed to remember it this much later.
You forgot abortion, abortion, and abortion. And Project 2025.
Trump is right about ABC "news." Just the fact that they have tried passing George Snuffleupagus off as an impartial journalist says it all. They guy was the main henchman for the Clintons. It's all a scam. Sadly, they are still able to brainwash tens of millions of voting Americans.
ABC executive Dana Walden, who oversees ABC News as a part of her responsibilities, is a close friend of Harris. I believe she introduced Harris to her husband. The couples are long-term friends and the Walden's have been fundraisers for Harris since she bargain her political career. No wonder Harris would only agree to the ABC interview. Trump is right to be suspicious given what happened with Brazile. This is not a good look for Harris. These debates should be entirely neutral - like on C-SPAN - or Harris should have reciprocated by agreeing to the Fox debate. She is a loser through and through and has no business being POTUS.
"bargain" --> "began"
"Is Kamala such a dingbat she can't anticipate what is coming? Hillary too?"
Dingbats is too kind. They're worse. They're actresses. Bad ones, and they need their lines to wrap the scene.
It sure looked the CNN "interview" was a set up as well. Then there were all the "pre-screened" "journalists" Biden had cards for at his "press" conferences. It's who they are. It's what they do. The Left never play fairly.
whining always whining,put this old man in his wheechair and send him to time out. DON OLD
With Harris, it makes no difference if she has the questions in advance. She'd still fuck up the answer in real time.
NYT: Oh there's evidence but Trump didn't specifically reference it so we'll go with our favorite "without evidence".
Here's video of 12 busses leaving a New Hampshire "rally" for Kamala Harris. The "supporters" were all union members bussed in from Massachusetts.
https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1831445554179784966
Her entire campaign is fake. The elections are fake and they are rigged.
Magic eight ball says probably
Kamala Harris claims, without evidence, that there’s a brain in her head…
Am I doing it right?
^ Totally not a Russian bot.
I commend Althouse for going so far as to search for Brazile. I would have moved on as soon as I encountered the fake-news flag “without evidence.”
no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign, ABC claimed without evidence.
I tell clients this all the time: You can have a 100-page contract, but if you are dealing with people of dishonor it won't make much difference.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-loss-best-possible-outcome-republican-partys-future-column?msockid=3d253cd4e82b6e931b7e2830e9b26f09 ,of course they want him gone,they sent a registered republican shooter to take him out in Butler,the same CIA that just like that lost all phone records on J6 right...
Donna did leave Fox to start working at ABC in 2021. She was chatting just last week on ABC with Reince Priebus. It's not like she doesn't have access.
At this point, "without evidence" means "correct, but we won't admit it".
Go ahead and give her as many boosts as possible. She was reading notes in the taped CNN interview. I don't usually think the standard for winning is "not drooling on yourself," but Kamala Harris can't reliably get to that level no matter how many one liners they try to feed her. Trump is very likely to jam any transmitters she's using halfway through the debate as well.
Always has.
I think Donna Brazile suffered some kind of symbolic punishment, but she wasn't cast into the wilderness. If someone at ABC decides to palm a few cards, it's a mostly risk free transgression, and has plenty of upside. Maybe ABC can sue Trump for defamation and win a few hundred million dollars.....I watch the ABC nightly news. Not to stay abreast of events, but to marvel at the blatancy of their bias. It's really phenomenal.
No she was not reading notes and there were no notes in front of her, watch it for yourself. This is Trump propaganda.
I was looking to see if the author (Michael Gold) had maybe been a teenager or college student at the time Brazille's misconduct came to light, but it appears he has been at the Times since 2015. So there's really no excuse. That said, a lot of journalists have no memory for inconvenient facts. Witness Sarah Palin's ongoing defamation lawsuit against the Times, in which the journalists' key defense is that they didn't intentionally propagate lies; they were just ignorant of their own newspaper's reporting. So the omission may not be a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. It may be the organic outcome of Michael Gold's own blinkered ignorance.
Have you noticed that only Republicans say things "without evidence", or "baselessly"? Democrats never do that. At least, not according to NYT.
Efficiency. There are a lot more potential questions than time to ask them. Giving the candidate a heads-up about which issues will be raised allows them to focus their prep on the best answers and responses to an opponent's potential answers, rather than trying to cover everything in debate prep.
Now mind you its a rather insipid publication that gets nearly every story wrong the first time around
Don't trap or unduly pressure Harris? What? Traps should be strewn everywhere. There is no amount of pressure that could be undue. Same for Trump.
They are running for the office of president of the United States of America, not president of the local 4H chapter. Foreign potentates aren't going to decline laying traps and putting on pressure because that would be so unfair and undue.
Indeed. Try to imagine a NYT article saying "Biden asserted without evidence that Trump's election would be the end of our democracy."
I wonder if Harris ever asserts anything “without evidence “. But in this case we do have evidence. Brazille herself in 2016.
Well, if Trump said Putin endorses Harris; it wouldn't be without evidence. Putin apparently saw Walz's family endorsing Trump and thought he might need to become more vocal about his support for Harris.
Of course Harris is going to get a heads up about what questions are coming. You literally have to be a moron to not know this. The only debates in the last 25 years that didn't have the Democrat getting a heads up might have been those where Lehrer was the moderator or a FOXNews host was the moderator. This is why the Democrats never ever allow the candidates to pick the moderators, not even on a 50/50 allocation- those are odds the Democrats aren't willing to take when they can get 3 or 4 to 1 moderators that are literally supporting the Democrat candidate.
I guess AA now guessing Harris coming to the debate.
"
Whine harder about baseless charges, Russia Hoaxer. 18 minutes of carefully edited footage was broadcast. Only a select few outside the studio, if anyone, know what's on the other 30+ minutes still in the can or what was happening when the cameras and mikes were turned off. Just the fact that she had to have her emotional support governor alongside said she still had the training wheels on.
Just ask yourself a simple question- if you were a Trump supporter working at ABC and you got access to the questions to be asked wouldn't you give Trump the information?
You can ask the same question if the ABC employee were a Harris supporter.
"The network released agreed-upon rules that no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign."
Any rule against Kamala's campaign providing questions to ABC that she wants the moderators to ask her and ask Trump?
That's quite a leap from a discussion about what Donald Trump is saying about the debate.
I’m also looking forward to someone asking Trump at some point if he will pardon himself and his co-defendants in the federal cases.
Of course he will, but shouldn’t the American voters get to hear him say the real reason why he’s running?
without evidence men can have babies
Unburdened by what has been.
Karl Marx
"Trump is right about ABC "news.""
I hadn't watched ABC (or CBS or NBC) for a long, long time. Then, after the Trump/Biden debate, I happened to catch ABC News. I was so aghast at what I saw I watched it a for a few more days just to make sure it wasn't a sampling error. They were far more political and biased than I have to expect from even CNN (I don't know about MSNBC, I don't watch them).
If Trump is re-elected, that would be a clear sign that American voters pardoned Trump, and thanks to Democrats making it an issue, it would likely be the real reason he won.
Anyone with a brain knows that ABC is in the tank for the Democrats and will do everything possible to make Kamala look good and Trump look bad.
The challenge for Trump is to manage the adversities with a reasonable amount of grace. Let Kamala-laal-ding-dong talk in order to let the audience know that she is just a programmed fool.
Trump needs to throw a few gentle zingers at Kamala-lala-ding-dong. She has very little experience handling adversity and will probably become shrill and angry.
Prediction: If Donald Trump loses, he won't take it well. He can take it out on JD Vance.....
"no topics or questions would be provided to either candidate or campaign, ABC claimed without evidence."
So easy, a caveman could do it.
Yeah, trump has no evidence other than he's suing Stepholgopis for slander, and ABC news refused to interview him for years. And Brazille is a long-time DNC member and was Al Gore's campaign manager. And she gave questions to Hillary before a debate. Yep, no evidence.
Newsflash. This just in: NYT asserts without evidence, that Trump has no evidence the debate is rigged.
Trump knows, as we all know, that "journalists" now see it as their legitimate role to dissuade the public from supporting Trump, conservatism, populism, and any and all other causes or beliefs that run contrary to the woke, globalist worldview of elite democrats. The whole idea of journalistic neutrality has been expressly abandoned. Given this, it seems pretty obvious that they will entertain input from the Harris campaign as to the questions that should be asked.
The way you stop something like "giving the questions" to one side is to raise awareness so more people are looking for signs. Now an errant ABC employee like Brazile isn't going to get ABC off the hook. They've been put on notice. To remain credible, they have to use their management controls to control employee bad behavior.
Plus, now to do it and if found out, ABC and those involved will have proved Trump right. And that is something they cannot abide.
Trump created a dilemma for his enemies at ABC.
There should be a segment where the candidate ask each other questions. Harris would read hers off a card provided by her staff. Trump would ignore his cards and ask about something she said earlier.
It might even cut down on his editorializing if he was allowed to formulate his objections into questions for her to answer.
Even more so when they control the mediators who will adjudicate any disputes.
Not just efficiency, but planning a joke. The right quip can become viral. The more it's in line with the precise wording of the question, the cleverer it will appear to be. Harris needs time to practice the delivery so it sounds spontaneous.
If Kamala does poorly on the debate, as she is likely to do, the following week is Trumps "sentencing ". Is it more likely that he will get jail time if she looks bad at the debate? If she is spectacular, will he get just probation and a fine? I wonder if there's a correlation there.
George Stephanopolis and ABCNews is currently being sued for defamation by this candidate: they accused him of being convicted of rape (a lie). They did this multiple times and with malice aforethought.
It is journalistically UNETHICAL for ABCNews to be hosting a debate when they are being sued for defamation by one of the debate participants.
Not only are they pre-screened questions that Biden got from "friendly" journalists ... they not even real journalists. Courtney Subramanian (the LA Times reporter who gave Biden questions) is the wife of the son of the former Democrat governor of Illinois. She's a Hall of Fame Democrat Party plant in the media. She's a fake journalist working for a fake newspaper (it's owned by a Chinese billionaire).
"The only check on that behavior is that at some point, the coddling is obvious and invites mockery." That mockery already occurs, but not from anyone that those who are being mocked care about, or to be very honest are even aware of. The only way the mockery will matter to the media-writ-large will be if the mockery comes from their own, and that will only happen if the election outcome is so painful as to cause introspection.
I don't think she's going to do "poorly." It's about how she performs relative to expectations, and expectations, thanks in part to Biden, are lower than they have ever been before for a major party candidate. As long as she doesn't immediately blow up on the launch pad like Biden, there will be enough for partisans and journalists to claim her performance was masterful.
Democrats don't need a heads up on these questions since all leftists share the same braincell. They know every question will be framed in a friendly way and even someone as dumb as Harris can guess what topics will come up. She has rehearsed answers for everything and knows she need not explain a damn thing since there won't be any real follow up .
Maybe there is hope for New Hampshire after all. I thought Taxachusetts had taken it over.
She may not have been cast into the wilderness, but her hair did turn blue.
Well Brazile did do the deed - as charged - and then repeatedly lied that she hadn’t after the fact. And she currently works for ABC, IIRC.
This is how stupid you have to be to be a Harris supporter.
How is the pay ? Do they pay in rubles ?
I really hope you F###$ put Trump in jail.
Please be stupid enough to put him in jail through November 7th.
I am heartily sick of the progressive trope "without evidence". A more accurate phrase would be "Trump insistently alleged that Kamala would get nothing but softball questions". Which is probably true--and the answers will be scripted on the teleprompter. Or you could say "New York Times writer claims without evidence that Trump did x y z etc." But the phrase "without evidence" should be sent off where the Sun never shines.
Reminds me of the Obama pillow SNL skit.
Democrats are just dishonest people in general. It is a requirement.
ABC relies on the stupidity of the average Democrat voter.
It also relies on the funding from the Oligarch that owns it because it does nothing to produce profit anymore.
The bigger problem is that the questions to Trump will be premised on Democrat talking points, as they were in the debate with Biden. "Climate change is the biggest crisis we face, yet as President you withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords. What will you do differently this time to ensure that the Earth doesn't burn up in 20 years?" Or "You favor leaving abortion up to the states, but many states are now banning abortion. Doesn't this mean you effectively favor banning abortion and ruining the lives of millions of women?"
Trump could swat those questions away with ease if he'd prepare, but he won't prepare.
The appeals will take care of that, idiot.
How much "evidence" in advance does Trump need
At least more than "the monkeys flying out of my butt told me that Harris is going to get the questions in advance", which apparently is all the evidence he has.
Watch what, dullard ? The edited tape ? This is pretty dull for even you.
well you can't answer the first question in one minute, the second is nearly as tendentious,
Inga and Freder are double teaming this morning to sound as stupid as possible.
How does or would the NYTs know it is "without evidence". They have no idea probably what might have been passed along to Trump's camp, from within ABC.
If the NYTs wants to say "without PROVIDING evidence", that would be fine. But that's not what they say.
They apparently have the ability to prove the negative.
'that is not true mr muir, mean temperatures have not increased in the last ten years neither have carbon dioxide emissions, there is no direct relation between human activity and the former, and furthermore the Paris accord has no meaningful impact on the latter,
Yeah, I guess you're not aware they've already dumped Joe. BTW, you forgot the ALL CAPS again.
Based on past performance I wouldn't say this assertion is without evidence - maybe he's got an insider at ABC
I'm sure Trump will be sentenced to jail. immediately. And the jail will deny admission to the Secret Service.
You mean, Trump should answer questions designed to hold him accountable? Give me a specific example of another politician that's been 'held accountable' more than Trump has been. Name at least one, extra points for two.
A hundred points, if you can name a Democrat that serves in Washington DC. Another hundred if you can name a Democrat journalist willing to ask that Democrat politician 'the questions' you have in mind.
Let me just get this out of the way: Yeah - I thought so.
I waiting to hear (because I know it will happen eventually) "Trump asserted, without evidence, that he had no evidence."
Really?! This is a stupid thread. There is no evidence of this at all, yet you are all jumping to conclusions just because you want it to be true.
Apparently, Althouse believes that it is fine for Trump to make shit up as because of something that happened eight years ago, and didn't even involve Harris.
I could have just replied, "oh yeah, I'm rubber and you're glue". I don't know how a 80 some year old ex-surgeon has the maturity of a sixth grader.
Collective leftist democrat phrase: "without evidence"
No evidence other than everyone involved has been caught doing it in the past.
Thread poster says: "At least more than "the monkeys flying out of my butt told me ..." 18 minutes later, thread poster says: Really?! This is a stupid thread. "
At last: Evidence.
Sheesh, more monkeys flying out of your butt. Please provide evidence that everyone involved has been caught doing it in the past. Donna Brazile has not been chairman of the DNC since 2017 and Harris and Hilary Clinton are two entirely different people. The debate is not even on the same network.
https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/
We had a long tradition of a "non-partisan" independent group coordinating debates, debate rules, prep, moderators, and more. Now they weren't perfect, and they had some high profile screw-ups, but their impetus created a certain level of momentum towards the fair.
That went away with the CNN debate with Biden-Trump - which, I have to say, was actually a well done debate. But the rapid embrace of no longer independent presidential debates and to simply pick and choose news outlets is deeply problematic.
Probably OT, but the debate format that I want to see is each candidate making a 3-5 minute opening statement followed by thirty minutes of the candidates cross examining each other, then three minutes each in closing. No "moderators", just a time keeper/referee. Let them fight it out between themselves.
Has Sulzberger thought to warn Julian Assange that a quiet war against press freedom could come to America?
Can’t your two buddies Moe and Larry put you in your chair, Dinky Doo?
This dickhead is still pushing "the shooter was a registered Republican" without an ounce of curiosity why. Yes, and John McCain was a "Republican"
When I heard that sound bite of Trump, Donna Brazile came to mind as well. So if you're upset that Trump leveled the charge, don't blame him, blame Brazile.
That said, there's not real reason to believe Harris will be provided the questions. After all, it's not actually a debate, and there's no doubt David Muir knows which side his bread is buttered.
The fact so much is being made of one phony baloney debate (much like the CNN interview) shows how weak Harris is. If she had even minimal political skills, none of this would matter. But the fact it does seem to matter (quite a lot, apparently) tells you all you need to know. She's obviously an idiot, and everybody around knows it.
Prediction: Rich will take it repeatedly in the 0utback.
The Quiet War against Fair Debates Could Come to America
Debate moderators in countries around the world are now slipping debate questions to their preferred candidates after Trump claimed without evidence that ABC News gave the debate questions to Kamala Harris in advance.
I included some of Muir's earlier offerings for context sake
You are just a dumb person Freder. Nobody buys your crap anymore. Get over it.
Sen. Menendez. But does that really count since it was like his third time to be held "accountable" yet kept being welcomed back by Democrats and by voters in the Senate? Even if this time, he leaves office; I'm not sure he can be said to be held to account just yet. So keep your money. If takes this many corruption charges over decades, then your point still holds.
Still time to hold Hillary accountable for mishandling classified data.
No. It's unethical.
“She always says what is untrue
She is a master falsifier
When somebody fact-checks her
Like a chameleon she change her attire
Kamala’s a big fat liar
Kamala’s a big fat liar
Liar, liar pants on fire!
The time for cackling is through
Joe Biden’s condition is dire
Now the party turns its eyes to her
It’s time to claim what she desires
Kamala’s a big fat liar
Kamala’s a big fat liar
Liar, liar pants on fiyuh!”
Apologies to the Doors…
More "Without Evidence" stuff.
Funny how Regime Toadies saying things to undercover honeypots is not evidence either.
Fredo loses his mud. Film at 11…
Also, Candy Crowley, who offered affirmative assistance is a well-established Democratic ploy. An NYT publisher who offers affirmative advocacy, AA is a clear and progressive method of dictating a fake consensus.
Ann's viewpoint on this story is why I have come to this site for most of 20 years. Bravo!
Any mention of Brazile by NYT commenters?
Freder, how confident are you that there will be no communication, collusion, or coordination whatsoever between the KH campaign and anybody at ABC concerning the questions? And what evidence do you have in support of your belief?
Their problem is that most here have heard the MSM try to debunk truths that they dislike with identical terminology. If they don’t like some inconvenient facts, they call those pushing such as not having any evidence. Here are some of the things that they claimed were without evidence:
- Crooked Hillary was behind the Trump/Russian collusion story
- the Deep State illegally utilized FISA against Trump and his people
- Hunter laptop was real
- the MAL raid was to acquire documents incriminating the DOJ and FBI that Trump had formally ordered declassified
- COVID-19 was not any more dangerous to most Americans than the seasonal flu, that the ModRNA vaccines were dangerous and ineffective, that masking and social distancing wouldn’t provide herd immunity, that Fauci and colleagues were being bribed by the pharma industry, etc.
There seems to be a very fine line, if any, between lacking any evidence, disinformation, misinformation, and even malinformation. It all means that we have diverged from their set narrative, and they want us back on the reservation, slavishly following their propaganda and lies, as some leftists here do.
Agree
I read the link. Reads like Biase's personal opinion to me.
Not only that, but The View is part of ABC's News division. Really.
"the MAL raid was to acquire documents incriminating the DOJ and FBI that Trump had formally ordered declassified"
You used contend that Trump could declassify documents without any formal process (he can declassify documents and doesn't need to tell anyone), now you are claiming that he had "formally ordered" them declassified.
You are getting as bad as Simon (although not quite, because Simon would contradict himself in a single thread).
I could ask the same thing about Trump. Like you, I would have no evidence to support that belief.
Althouse, or any reader who has a digital subscription to the Times, can post the article's web address here on Archive.today and archive that article for the rest of us to read.
It would make for better discussion and is apparently legal.
Donna Brazile was forced out from CNN after she attempted to interfere with the election. Jake Tapper said she was unethical and called her "journalistically horrifying". Her only defense was that she was a "commentator not a journalist."
After this disastrous shot to her honesty and credibility, who would hire her? ABC! The House of Mouse. And the only network to be allowed the privilege of watching Kamala "I don't speak to just anybody you know" Harris debate.
She is a phony, she is terrified of public speaking, she cannot function without cheating. This is a woman who clears a restaurant of customers and buses in actors to adore her in front of cameras. Of course they are giving her the questions in advance!
MSNBC article about ABC commentator Donna Brazile and her volunteer work for the Kamala Harris campaign.
"Could" does not mean "may only." There's no contradiction.
The Left has the support of 80% of Wall Street, 90% of Silicon Valley, 90% of the news media, 95% of government workers, 98% of show biz, and essentially all of academia, labor unions, the legal bar, organized medicine, and nearly all non-profit organizations that are not conservative by charter (and many that are.) They control a solid majority of the military officer corps, especially at the highest levels, and essentially all religious institutions except Orthodox Jewry, the Mormons, and the Christian Evangelicals. The end of the Gramscian march through the institutions is clearly in view, if not practically within their grasp.
And yet... they barely cling to power from one election to another, even with the most obvious underhanded cheating and biased partisan interference by the institutions mentioned above.
They are scared, and they are acting like they are scared, and by God they should be scared. A richly deserved well of public hatred for them is rising day by day. When the definitive preference cascade occurs, and the people reclaim their powers and liberties from their leftist enemy oppressors, all of the institutions they control will be toppled, dismembered, or conquered. The Right will rule for generations, and a century of socialist filth and grime will be swept away in a matter of weeks or months.
The liberation of Romania at Christmas 1989 provides a road map for what will happen here on a much larger scale.
I found this CNN report criticizing Harris for her flip-flop and lies about the wall at our southern border - with all the details - quite remarkable…
https://x.com/GuntherEagleman/status/1831694357855965273
Now, Marcus, ask yourself how common a character would you be working at ABC, CNN, or MSNBC?
Via Ace:
Kamala Harris's campaign agrees to participate in the upcoming ABC News debate with Donald Trump, after receiving assurances regarding the controversial microphone mute rule.
Key Details:
Harris's campaign initially resisted debate rules requiring muted microphones during candidates' speeches.
"Assurances" from ABC include allowing mics to be turned on during significant cross-talk and moderators explaining muted exchanges.
The Harris campaign claims the debate format will disadvantage her, but ultimately agreed to the rules to avoid jeopardizing the debate.
Who needs the questions in advance when you have "assurances" the moderators will "explain" things on your behalf.
Legacy media is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. Previous Democratic candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had the political chops to answer virtually any question under pressure, while Kamala Harris does not. That leaves ABC News with two debate options: Ask Harris softball questions, or ask her hardball questions that have been previously leaked to her. Why choose either/or when you can have both/and?
Nope, I would counter that Mendez doesn't qualify on the grounds of volume and intensity. What he has been proven to do, is much worse on ethical grounds. He's only been taken to task for his and his wife's obvious influence mongering and profiteering, for which there was abundant proof. They high-graded the proof and downgraded the charges, based on party professional courtesy. He'll probably just slink into obscurity.
Dumb Ass Trump is afraid he'll look foolish debating with Harris, so he's feeding the public the face-saving lies now: "She'll have the questions and will be preparing for weeks, and I'll just hear the questions on the spot! Wah! Waaaaah!" Just as he said recently (and also prior to the 2020 election) that "the only way he can lose is if the election is rigged!" He's a bad sport and excuses-making baby-man to the core of his putrescent core!
And yet, Trump is so afraid he'll be shown up in the "debate" that he's putting out spoilers to explain in advance why she might have better responses than he, (or, more plainly, to explain away his normal bullshit and lies).
Robert Cook
Dumb Ass Trump is afraid he'll look foolish debating with Harris
Do you honestly believe this Robert? There are many honest and accurate criticisms one might make of Trump, but this notion strikes me as delusional wishful thinking.
Dumb Ass Trump is afraid he'll look foolish debating with Harris, so he's feeding the public the face-saving lies now:
And Cook portrays himself as a person of great intellectual and moral clarity.
That schtick might work in the HS faculty cafeteria where the average IQ is about 93, but this 'aint HS any more, kid.
"I tell clients this all the time: You can have a 100-page contract, but if you are dealing with people of dishonor it won't make much difference."
That's the reason so many businesses over time became reluctant (or refused) to deal with Trump Organization, given the contractors he stiffed on monies due, often paying nothing or paying less than the original agreements, and why some banks have stopped lending to him, and why he took money from foreign governments while he was POTUS. He's a chiseler and shyster.
Yes, I do believe this.
"And Cook portrays himself as a person of great intellectual and moral clarity."
My comment was strictly about Trump's woeful character and intellect. I said nothing about my own morals or intellect, though, compared to Trump on either, I'm sure I'm not in near as squalid a state as he.
I don't think Freder is ever going to run out of monkeys flying from his nether regions. Kinda like the gun in the hero's hand in bad movies that has an inexhaustible supply of bullets.
Speaking of the debate and what ABC is willing to do for the Democrat participant; even though she agreed to the rules of muted mics; the news is she accepting going to debate with muted mics, because ABC has assured the Harris campaign they will unmute the microphones for heated exchanges. Except, how would there be "exchanges" if the other participants microphone was muted, unless it was unmuted prior to the exchange. Sounds like ABC is altering the agreed rules to make Harris happy, while pretending to not alter the rules that both sides agreed to follow. Giving into Harris, she's now pretending she will still do the debate.
Dumb ass Trump managed to beat Hillary in 2016 while spending half as much money and getting many fewer votes. He is supported this time by morons like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, while opposed by geniuses like Robert DiNiro and Rob Reiner.
Items of interest to voters hour hostess's MSM missed: Kamala agrees there should be separate laws for "black" persons: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1831676145672044664
I will direct the DOJ to censor you: https://twitchy.com/samj/2024/09/05/kamala-promises-to-censor-people-n2400573
At least more than "the monkeys flying out of my butt told me that Harris is going to get the questions in advance", which apparently is all the evidence he has.
Maybe you should shove those monkeys back up your ass.
Dumb Ass Trump is afraid he'll look foolish debating with Harris
People who get shot aren't afraid of debating a dingbat.
”The media forgot about Biden so fast you’d think it was a botched Afghanistan withdrawal, fire in Maui, train wreck in Ohio, Venezuelan apartment takeover, or assassination attempt on Trump.”
—— Kevin Sorbo
Althouse
"How much "evidence" in advance does Trump need before he's entitled to waft his suspicion about something"
Althouse is now only concerned in keeping the Know Nothings happy and getting as many clicks as she can.
I believe you, Robert. Over the years you have thoroughly demonstrated that you are this dumb/willfully ignorant
John Henry
Brazile failed the deception detection test developed by Phil Houston for the CIA that helps determine who’s lying:
1) when questioned, she immediately invoked God and her religion into the discussion and claimed she was being persecuted.
2) She attacked the question/questioner
3) She engaged in “convincing behavior”.
“She’s a paid liar!”
—— Megyn Kelly
She has a hard time stringing sentences together to say something coherent. She’s stupid…
…by this point the ‘without evidence’ tag is an indicator that the dupe is on. He says..
Don’t forget C student and Facts of Life extra George Clooney
That’s a baseless charge, but totally in keeping with your asshole nature.
rehajm said...
"She has a hard time stringing sentences together to say something coherent. She’s stupid…"
rehajm said...
"She has a hard time stringing sentences together to say something coherent. She’s stupid…"
Well she was a professor at a prestigious mid west Law School , so there's that. But I will concede she's not the most cogent writer. I don't think its stupidity as much as trying to con the Althouse community.
Iman
"That’s a baseless charge, but totally in keeping with your asshole nature."
"baseless"- But the moderator has just stated in this very thread that we don't need "evidence" in order to "waft our suspicions" (sic).
I stand by my prediction she bows out at the last minute. It's all downside for her in a live debate. She won't even take an unscripted question right now from a sycophant media all in for her.
Trump will be Epsteined. People will yawn. The super smart people will justify it. Inga will sleep well, with a smile on her face.
For democracy!
I can only wish I were as virtuous.
I'm convinced ABC will chest on Shamala's behalf. And the only thing I have to say is that the present crew of political journalists are making themselves irrelevant by their sycophantic, one-sided "journalism." You have to know something to ask questions that bring out the truth about a politician's real intentions and the real consequences of policies - but anybody can do a Donna Brazile and/or ask biased questions. When "political journalists" start acting like a synchronized swim team, all saying the same thing at the same time, they thereby become useless and not worth the high salaries they presently get. The value of a political journalist is deflating unlike everything else and I expect the members of Team Pundit will have surprises when they negotiate their next contract, regardless of who wins.
Cook lies all the time. We are used to it.
Freder is our local expert on truth. If Freder says it, it is not true.
Most intelligent comment by Mutaman ever!
Cook has made obvious his crazy ideas here for years. He is best ignored.
Interesting comment. Free speech is not your thing. You are in the correct party.
I am still worried about another attempt.
Better or worse then expectations.... Hmmm... That's media and commenter terms. For the People, ordinary people, those few who are still uncertain, it will be who performs better, not who performs above or below media "expectation". A truly visible bad performance by Kamala could persuade the leaning towards Kamala persuadables to change their mind.
Funny how no one is talking about whether or not Trump exceeds or falls below expectations- it's all about Kamala.
Cook is just a dishonest person now. Happens to all of the ideologically possessed.
Cook said Biden would win the debate against Trump too.
Cook is just as dumb as Inga now.
The problem Cook is that Trump is obviously much smarter than you and much more successful than you in every way.
Okay Freder, describe the formal process that POTUS, any POTUS, Trump or otherwise, must use to declassify documents. I keep hearing ignoramuses = like you - refer to "He didn't follow procedure!" without telling us what the procedure was. Now I understand your weasel wording here- you're going to state you didn't say that he had to follow some procedure, you just said You used contend that Trump could declassify documents without any formal process (he can declassify documents and doesn't need to tell anyone), implying he had to, so you can deny you said he had to. And in the case of the documents it appears they were after- he did issue a formal order declassifying those particular documents That they didn't find. There's no contradiction. They're still afraid he has them hidden away somewhere. But where else are they going to search?
ding ding ding...
No. Read what Earnest Prole wrote. That's closer to reality.
"Without evidence" = you cannot prove it.
That's how the corrupt left dems operate.
It stinks more and more:
- the supposed shooter wandered around for an hour or so, before climbing onto the roof. Audience and local LEOs saw him climbing up there, and tried to alert the Secret Service, with no response.
- no one was posted on the roof, but should have been.
- Secret Service ignored shared frequencies that day with local LEOs
- they didn’t show up to the pre-operation meeting
- turns out, most of Trump’s security detail were Homeland Security agents (instead of Secret Service) with a two hour Zoom call for their training.
- local LEO made the first shot on the alleged shooter - from the ground, hitting his rifle, and probably destroying its effectiveness.
- the kill shot was supposedly by a federal sharpshooter. Not clear if he was Secret Service, or DHS. Later investigations onto the roof showed almost no blood at the supposed kill site, which is unlikely from the claimed kill shot.
- the alleged shooter’s body was cremated in less than a week, before an independent or Congressional appointed pathologist could perform an autopsy.
- DHS and Secret Service have refused to provide a log (or recording) of the radio traffic, either to Congressional investigators or pursuant to FOIA requests.
How do we even know if the alleged shooter was the actual shooter, was acting alone, etc? Because the FBI/SS/DHS say so? They all three have blood on their hands, so their credibility right now is extremely suspect.
TBH, there were many unethical things I did when I was younger. ("Younger" can mean an hour ago). I remember when I was editor of my college paper and I had decided that the "paper" would endorse Reubin Askew for Gov of FL vs Jerry Thomas, the Republican. Then Brian Crowley currently writing the Crowley Political Report), my News Editor that term, called me on the carpet for assuming that I had the power to do that (it was the full editorial board that voted endorsements) and for the arrogance (he didn't use that word, but it was) of not even considering the possibility of supporting the conservative candidate. I had to admit he was right, but wasn't happy about it. Right at the moment, I would NOT forward questions to my favored candidate in advance.
Coincidences: I did not know that Brian was related to the other Crowleys I knew: his mom was a waitress at The Royal Lion Restaurant where I first held a cook's job (I liked her); his younger twin brothers (Pat - successfully artist and editorial cartoonist for the Palm Beach Post; Stephen, award-winning photographer for the New York Times); then Pat married Jan Tuckwood, my editorial assistant in college, who became a fantastically-talented editor of the Post's award-winning Accent section. Features of outstanding imagination and quality.) They divorced and Pat recently married long-time GF Terri Parker, investigative reporter for local TV WPTV in West Palm. While we are no longer the small town of less than 3,000 when I first moved here, it seems as if it is still a small world after all. And Brian Crowley was right to call me out on my arrogance.
My dear fellows of the commentariat, I cannot believe this conversation has gone on so long without someone noting Trump's ability to speak extemporaneously and turn virtually any answer into an attack or mockery of his opponents. The two minute windows require a modest amount of discipline on his part - the questions don't. In the Biden debate, he answered them according to his wishes, not the questioners. Harris cannot come close to Trump in her ability to speak extemporaneously. If she simply provides a canned answer, and then stands silently as the moderators point out that she has more time, as Biden did, she will be revealed as the weakling she is, particularly in the face of Trump's certain verbal barrage. I am with Althouse, I will be surprised if the debate happens. If it does, I expect something like the famous Ali-Liston fight moment, with Ali glowering over the prone Liston screaming "what's my name?".
Assuredly ABC will provide questions to Kamala in advance, possibly even try to coach her beforehand but it won't matter. Kamala will seize up and choke just like Biden did. Being a democrat means never being challenged by the media so they haven't developed the skills to think on their feet. If they did have any, they have gotten soft and flabby from disuse.
Yancey - Bravo with that reply!!
Not to worry. Rich hasn't been right yet. In fact this is a good indication that Trump will win.
Freder. You know , of course, about the arguments that went on between the FBI rank and file who did not want to raid MAL, right? You also know, of course you do, that the SS was alreasdy at MAL as part of their duty to protect a past president and as such MAL was already secure. You knew that, right?
Harris will speak in short, memorized, platitudes and be praised exorbitantly for not brain-locking, despite the vacuity of her answers. Trump will be criticized for existing. There, now you don't have to watch the debate. The election will be decided on the basis of mail-in ballot harvests, which the Dems are experts at, so expect a Harris win even if she eats a live rat while Trump is answering a question.
Apparently Freder doesn't know.
I suspect that Trump is vastly more intelligent than Cook. Without getting personal, Robert. Which of Trumps policies concern you the most?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा