CNN's Toobin 'regrets' his role in pushing Clinton 'false equivalency'

[DonViejo]

BY AVERY ANAPOL - 01/29/18 12:49 PM EST

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin now says he regrets his role in pushing a “false equivalency” between Hillary Clinton's scandals and President Trump's own problems during the 2016 election.

In an interview on Larry Wilmore’s “Black on the Air” podcast published earlier this month, Toobin told Wilmore that he feels he is “somewhat responsible” for a media climate that falsely compared Clinton and Trump.

“I think there was a lot of false equivalence in the 2016 campaign,” Toobin told Wilmore, the Washington Post reported Monday. “Every time we said something, pointed out something about Donald Trump, whether it was his business interests, or ‘grab ’em by the pussy,’ we felt like, ‘Oh, we gotta … say something bad about Hillary.’”

“I think it led to a sense of false equivalence that was misleading, and I regret my role in doing that,” he added.

###

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/371221-cnns-toobin-says-he-regrets-his-role-in-pushing-clinton-false-equivalency

[gratuitous]

1. So, after pushing the false equivalency narrative in the popular media

Toobin bravely goes on an obscure podcast to make his amends.

Not quite the same thing there, Jeffrey.

[comradebillyboy]

8. The Washington Post picked up the story

so Jeff's bosses at CNN will see it too.

[bigbrother05]

49. Maybe Wilmore was the first media person to call him on it?

If you can glide through your days surrounded by folks that are just as complicit as yourself, you might not be confronted by your guilt.

Going on an obscure podcast just might be a brave act if you are willing to answer the tough questions and not try to dodge and spin.

But you are right that it's more courageous to bust yourself on your home outlet without prompting.

[TheBlackAdder]

65. A brief reply from the Democrats

.



or



.

[PatSeg]

2. A lot of media people

need to apologize for their unprofessional coverage of the campaign and accept their share of responsibility for the nightmare we are experiencing.

[Va Lefty]

3. Well stated!

[Hortensis]

80. Understated. It wasn't just unprofessional, it was betrayal

of their duties and the principles that are supposed to set at least basic limits on what they'll sink to, and they did it for self aggrandizement: it was a requirement for being invited on mainstream political talk shows.

THIS is what Toobin is talking about:

VOX, July 2015: Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary

1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets
...
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

I'll add a 6th rule I observed many times: Anyone who says anything positive about Hillary must overbalance it with negative caveats. The closing statement must be negative.

[PatSeg]

81. Absolutely

No one was allowed to just praise her without offsetting the praise with a critique. It was just second nature with everyone in the MSM. No man ever had to put up with this sort of reporting. She was always guilty until proven innocent and even then, she was probably guilty.

[Hortensis]

87. +100. Always guilty, even if not proven.

They created a special standard only for her, so she could always be claimed to fall far short.

Perversely, in those days sexism was almost never admitted to have any part in it. It was all about Hillary's sins and deficiencies, the only witch who ever needed burning whose sex was irrelevant.

There was, of course, no discussion of how the right wing created "baggage" stuffed with their lies and the MSM eagerly delivered it wherever her name appeared.

We didn't know Russia's role at all. We should have, but the media were too busy "reporting on" Hillary's manufactured sins to notice the blizzards of incoming and admit they didn't originate from that pile of suitcases they'd stacked around the witch's feet.

And we still have absolutely no idea how much of this "coverage" was the result of seditious and even treasonous plots involving MSM figures, only that the vast right wing conspiracy was much larger and more dangerous than even Hillary could guess, even the FBI working in tandem with Russia.

[PatSeg]

90. It seems as if the MSM

has trouble thinking outside their little limited bubble. Most of them just repeat the same things that others say. Only a few express any original take on any particular event or story. Programmed robots could do what they do.

I remember once during the campaign, when a cable news host referred to Hillary's email story as a "scandal", when it was obviously far from it, but the word sticks once people start using it. Now we know there was plenty of real scandal, but cable news only knows how to play two or three notes over and over again. Donald Trump's entire life has been one scandal after another, but so much of it got ignored.

[Hortensis]

92. Yes. They average far smaller than their inflated personas.

Speaking of bubbles, a classic example is Truman. He'd would be considered one of the greats if he hadn't allowed himself to be fooled into the Korean War. As it is, though, historians consider him near great, as one consensus smiled, worthy of a profile on Mount Rushmore.

And yet all the great journalists of his time, people whose names we know to this day, completely failed to measure him. For 8 years they chortled and moaned in their insiders' bubble about how hopelessly inadequate this "haberdasher" (not true) appointee was, never moving beyond groupthink to do their job -- even the supposed "greats," like Edward R. Murrow, who was just a conceited gasbag posing for publicity photos as far as Truman was concerned. And how surprised, and offended, they were when the electorate reelected him enthusiastically. No insights forced. Their idiot bubble continued.

Today's "journalists," especially screen, constantly remind me of that, which is why I much prefer those whose careers do not depend on belonging to the beltway "in crowd." And why I always wonder what crowd they belong to.

[PatSeg]

93. That is a good example

I guess journalism has always had its far share of sheep, but today with cable news, there is big money in being a personality first and a journalist second, if at all. So I think we see far less real objective journalism, but that could be looking backwards with rose colored glasses.

The truly independent thinkers often get the boot, like Dan Rather or Keith Olbermann. Rebels don't tend to last long in the corporate world. Meanwhile, print journalism is still having an impact, but I fear they won't last. I've seen some really great talent during the election season and this past year.

[brush]

15. The "Morning Joe" crew should be the most apologetic of all.

They gave him gobs of air time for ratings and now they cynically bash him with gobs of air time for ratings.

[PatSeg]

52. Yes

It is hard to take their Trump bashing seriously, being it could be construed as a ratings ploy, much like their catering to Trump's ego during the campaign.

[FakeNoose]

27. Yes

I'd say almost of of 'em were guilty in one way or another. They need to own up to that.

[PatSeg]

55. And resolve to do a better job

or find another career.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. +1000

[pangaia]

39. Agreed. BUT, they need to more than apologize.

I'm sure you get my drift.

[NNadir]

46. Particularly anyone who gave the misogynist Lauer a role.

Let's never forget that the debate moderator in the first Presidential debate in history between a woman and a pig was a person who holds women in overt contempt and had no problem whatsoever with pigs.

[PatSeg]

54. I'll never forget that

His disrespect was off the wall. He should have been suspended or fired for that disaster. I guess no one could surprised when sexual misconduct allegations started to surface. The man showed his misogynist tendencies while interviewing a woman, who most people at that point believed would be president of the United States.

I really never understood his success. He has the appeal of a damp dish rag, but apparently a dish rag has more scruples.

[NNadir]

67. Well Pussy Grabbers have to stick together, otherwise decent people would rule the world and...

...we couldn't have that, could we?

We are now living in Paddy Chayevsky's dystopian nightmare.

If people wonder why our democracy is finally failing, the lack of integrity in the press would go a long way to explaining it.

I grew up when the news organizations hired people like Walter Cronkite, and David Brinkley, not idiot hacks, who clearly hated their country as much as Lauer clearly did.

To be honest, I never actually saw Matt Lauer's shows; to the extent I was exposed to his drivel, I found it insipid and unworthy of consideration.

I also didn't watch the "debates" or should I say the "woman haranguing" since I couldn't imagine Trump had anything intelligent or wise to say.

He didn't, but it didn't matter. The pussy grabbers won, Lauer and his pal.

[PatSeg]

69. I never watched any Matt Lauer show either

I just saw clips of him and found him extraordinarily mediocre. I couldn't imagine what he did to deserve that kind of paycheck. $25 million??? Then when I saw the way he treated Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate, I imagined he would be severely reprimanded by his bosses. I was even thinking, "Damn, when she becomes president, you'll never set foot in the White House."

When Lauer interviewed Hillary, he kept rushing her and saying how limited their times was. Then with Trump he just kicked back and let Trump do and say whatever he wanted, kind of a "guy thing" I suppose.

I'm glad Lauer is gone, but he should have been gone a long time ago, because he is not very good at his job. Guess you have to be a pervert to get fired these days. Incompetence doesn't count.

[NNadir]

70. Point well taken. Some perverts keep their jobs though. The pornographer in the White House...

...isn't going to lose his, at least while the Putin Party controls congress.

[PatSeg]

71. Evidently some people

are too special to be fired.

[Hortensis]

89. Yes. His superiors must have known the real Lauer

revealed to us in that notorious "debate" but were fine with him. All I heard was his performance fell flat, a morning host not up to prime time, not the blatant misogyny.

[PatSeg]

91. I'm sure they did know

who he really was, yet were fine paying him an obscene salary for his lackluster performance. He wasn't even good as a morning host.

It was embarrassing to watch him interview Hillary. I can just imagine what was going on in her head.

[tblue37]

83. Back then the news was not required to function as a profit center. Now it is. nt

[iluvtennis]

53. Absolutely

[uponit7771]

58. +1, they hate taking any kind of responsibility for what people hear

[mountain grammy]

77. Yes, indeed they should.

[tblue37]

82. "Confessions of a Clinton reporter":

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

"Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary"

snip

1) Everything, no matter how ludicrous-sounding, is worthy of a full investigation by federal agencies, Congress, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," and mainstream media outlets

snip

2) Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false. And even then, it keeps a life of its own in the conservative media world.

snip

3) The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.I

snip

5) Everything she does is fake and calculated for maximum political benefit

snip

Much more at link:

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules

[irisblue]

4. You should regret it. You trashed your name.

[Cha]

9. Mahalo, irisblue

[irisblue]

13. Hey Cha

For the record....it eas 50 degrees yesterday and sunny. Today, I'm seeing snowflakes in the air. I'm envying your weather now.❤

[Cha]

14. Yeah, that's definitely one

of the perks of living here. Sunny and 67 degrees this morning.

But it's the last of January.. soon it will be Spring!

[niyad]

5. kind of reminds me of colin powell's "regrets" for the yellow cake nonsense. too late--

can't bring back all the dead bodies.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I'll give him credit for recognizing it - but it's too late now.

[pangaia]

40. He knew it all along. He just lied about everything.

fuck him.

[Lifelong Protester]

7. I hope the media is happy now.

[Me.]

10. Day Late, Dollar Short

[Botany]

11. It is a little too late for your crap now Toobin .... you knew what you were doing.

https://verrit.com/harvard-study-mainstream-media-acted-as-trumps-mouth-piece-clintons-foe/

Study: Mainstream Media Acted as Trump’s Mouthpiece, Clinton’s Foe

A study from Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center provides overwhelming evidence that the mainstream media were instrumental in electing Donald Trump. The key takeaway:

“Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.”
The chart below illustrates the staggeringly disproportionate focus on Hillary Clinton’s emails.

[LongTomH]

24. This should be an OP of its own.

The media may have played a greater role in putting Trump in the White House than Russia. I don't think it was by design; the media works with the principle: "If it bleeds, it leads!" Trump made good copy, he was bizarre.

[Botany]

25. click on the links and look @ the graphs

How many times did we hear that Trump's "military prep school" was really
reform school for rich kids or that he kept copies of Hitler's speeches by his bed?

[FakeNoose]

29. I find this surprising - NYTimes negative 61% vs. positive 39%

I would have pegged the New York Times at around 80% negative for Hillary. It sure seemed like it at the time.
This barchart is a good illustration of what the major American news outlets did to her in 2016.

[LAS14]

79. Thanks for this. It's good to have one's impressions confirmed by facts. Where...

...did you find this chart?

[FakeNoose]

86. Original poster (Don Viejo) provided the link in the quoted article

The barchart came from the article in the Washington Post. I made of copy of it so I could include it on my post.

Here it is again:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/29/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-i-regret-my-role-in-hillary-clinton-false-equivalence/?utm_term=.e1fa56772c9b

There's most info in that WaPo article also.

[spooky3]

30. Agree nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. Too bad

they couldn't have framed their coverage of him being "bizarre" as a BAD thing and a DISQUALIFICATION for the office of POTUS. Hillary was, objectively speaking, the most qualified for the position but the MSM gets bored of politicians like H. Clinton and Gore, whom were intelligent, qualified, and capable candiates and keep wanting to push "exciting" and "new" candidates like Bush Jr. and Trump, regardless of their intelligence, competence, etc. even when all signs point to a trainwreck waiting to happen.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. Exactly, but that is the problem with for-profit news organizations. They cater to and

in turn cultivate a sensationalism in the citizenry because they can't figure out a way to make the present the important, but mundane, in a way that holds the attention of "reality"-show-loving Americans.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. In that case

for them, Trump was the "perfect" candidate. It was a ready-made "reality show" special. Only problem is that it about who would win the Office of the Presidency of the United States, something that should never be trivialized as it was.

[tblue37]

85. Lee Moonves said he knew hyping Trump was bad for America, but since it was

good for CBS's bottom line he planned to keep doing it.

[MadDAsHell]

12. I struggle with the concept of false equivalency because its really an opinion.

I may cry false equivalency, you may say no, they’re the same, and who decides which is right?

Look at “fake news.” It was originally intended to mostly call out pro-Trump propaganda, now many people view anything they disagree with as “fake news.”

Unfortunately we don’t seem to live in a world of universal truth anymore, if we ever did. Perjury is not always perjury, a lie is not always a lie, etc.

[LanternWaste]

48. Equivalence, regardless of whether false or not, is irrelevant to objective and accurate news.

Equivalence, regardless of whether false or not, is irrelevant to objective and accurate news.

Objectivity and accuracy do not, in and of themselves require equivalence any more than science requires it.

Don't focus on the shiny vehicle of commercial branding, it's nothing more than a red herring designed to lead you to a false conclusion.

[RandomAccess]

60. Yeah,what you said too

[RandomAccess]

59. Who decides? People with more clarity and objectivity

than you, clearly.

You look at the FACTS, and then you weight: which side has more problems? Which side has less? Which side LIES all the time? Which side doesn't?

False equivalency is NOT a mystery, it's NOT difficult, false news does have a real definition (so don't help people blur that), and a lie IS always a lie.

[MadDAsHell]

62. How you wish things were, and how they are, are 2 different things.

“These 2 things aren’t equal because I say they’re not equal” might actually be true, but it’s not a convincing argument.

All the anger and outrage in the world doesn’t make a dent in the ignorance level of your fellow citizens.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

16. ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS complicit

I watched the broadcast networks (excluding FOX) throughout 2016. They were complicit. Some of the actors, such as Charlie 'Attack Hillary' Rose and Matt 'Emails' Lauer, are no longer in the business, but each of the listed networks placed sensationalism above journalism. Each contrived and contorted to report false equivalencies.

They are disgusting megaphones for ham actors.

[FakeNoose]

73. Owners & executives of network news were calling the shots

Hello Hermit and welcome to DU! I see that you're new here but perhaps you're aware of the many threads we've had on DU concerning the news media outlets.

Most of us are aware of the fact that reporters and pundits were many times told to favor Trump or at least go the "false equivalency" route during the 2016 campaign. They might as well have just started giving campaign speeches for Trump because that's how it sounded to us. The media never called Trump's bluffs on any issue, they just gave him a pass on everything. It's because the reporters and pundits would have lost their jobs if they didn't.

Early in 2016, the bosses and executives all decided that "Donald Trump is good for business." They made more money selling political advertising during the 2016 elections than ever in the history of TV news. I'm certain that Facebook led the way on this. TV news ratings were never better because Trump came up with one outrageous lie after another, along with his bullshit promises and fake news. Any reporters or newspaper writers who tried to point out the BS got immediately chastised or reassigned. The network news exeutives (and newspaper owners) made it possible and even likely for Trump to actually win this election. Why? Because most of them are Republicans and they were all making too much money to care about journalistic integrity.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

74. networks reflect their owners

The infamous quote of Les Moonves -- "it may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS" -- let the cat out of the bag for the whole coverage of the campaigns.

From mid-2015, here's the other side of the campaign coverage:

[link:https://www.vox.com/2015/7/6/8900143/hillary-clinton-reporting-rules|
Confessions of a Clinton reporter: The media's 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary]

[FakeNoose]

75. It's remarkable that this article was written a year before Trump became a candidate

It shows that the press was already treating Hillary negatively even before Trump was running.

On another thread we were discussing the info that came out a while ago: Coverage of Hillary's campaign by the major newspapers and TV news outlets was so comparably negative in 2016. There are many incidents such as the Matt Lauer interview, but looking at it all in total, it's quite amazing:

[Hermit-The-Prog]

76. tv network mentions

Another tool you might find useful (I don't know if it's been posted here before -- I'm a bit overwhelmed by info here):


[link:http://television.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016?filter_candidate=&filter_network=AFF&filter_timespan=ALL&filter_displayas=RAW|]

Set filters for, e.g., year and candidate to see how much free air time was given to that thing now in the Whitehouse.

[markpkessinger]

17. Apologies are all well and good . . .

. . . but the damage has already been done.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. I know, right?

Toobin resigning soon, I hope?

[Mr.Bill]

18. The problem goes deeper than the on-air personalities.

There are other people making decisions about who and what to cover. MSNBC showed Trump every minute of every time Trump stepped in front of a microphone. Chris Matthews covered Trump like he had knee pads on. He did the same thing with Palin.

[Pantagruel]

21. Trump and Palin

for whatever reasons bring RATINGS. Journalists, with just a few exceptions, have become ratings whores for the most part.
Rachel Maddow's long, detailed expository pieces appear to be breaking the mold, I hope.

[LiberalLovinLug]

31. Exactly

Yes these talking heads were complicit. They just loved those big fat paychecks rolling in. And would do anything their corporate overlords told them to. And the order was to make it a horse race. At least as close to one as possible given Hillary's "insurmountable" lead. In fact, Hillary vs. Trump looked so incredibly uneven, that they were obviously ordered to go overboard, and pound, first the Benghazi hoax, and later the "missing emails!!!" scam.

I think they, like everyone were shocked at the result. But its the network executives themselves that should be apologizing for their reckless strategy of thinking that because Trump seemed to always be stepping in it, then anything they said about Hillary must also be negative. Not once did I hear a show outlining the Democrat's platform, how they thought there might be some good things in there. Just because the Republican platform was hollow, did not mean they had to ignore the Democrat one. Still pissed about that. And this pawn falling on his sword for his bosses is almost meaningless.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. Trump didn't even need to be present

They covered empty podiums where he was ABOUT to speak.

[Hekate]

19. I hope every single one of his cohorts have this epiphany, plus the sleepless nights they deserve...

So far it's been too little, too late, and too mealy mouthed.

[Blue_Tires]

34. +1

[Saviolo]

20. I'm, y'know, really sorry I helped built the climate that burned your house down...

... he said sitting in the ashes and broken wood frames with an empty pack of matches in his hand, surrounded by a bunch of other journalists with empty packs of matches in their hands who have not said any word of apology.

[Augiedog]

22. Yeah, and I regret you

[marble falls]

23. Only two years late. Screw that apology.

[Leith]

26. Too Little, Too Late, Toobin

He jumped on the bash-HRC bandwagon, drank the Kool-Aid, now he's so so sorry.

Tell ya what, Jeffrey. Make amends. Get the truth out there in TV Land. Do it quickly or your little mea culpa means nothing.

[LisaM]

28. How could something so blindingly obvious to many of us not occur to him? He went to Harvard

fer cripe's sake.

Frankly, he did this with Al Gore and Bush, too. It's not his first circus. I still think he owes Al Gore an apology, but what do I know? I didn't go to Harvard Law.

[TimeToGo]

32. It wan't 50/50

As wrong as that might have been, it would have been better than the way it was.

Lots and lots and lots of uncritical coverage of Trump vs. almost no uncritical coverage of Clinton.

There were times when there was a lot of criticism of Trump, but that was always countered with negatives of Clinton. BUT since there were little positives presented for her on a running basis, there would have been no balance even if it were 50/50. BUT, even in the negative coverage it was more 30/70 weighted against Clinton.

So, thanks JT.

[byronius]

33. Hey now, calm down, it's just the fate of the human species at risk.

Plenty of other species out there in the galaxy.

I'm glad someone's being honest about the misogynistic hate-cannon pointed at Hillary for no fucking real reason other than ratings. And misogyny, of course.

We live in the goddamned Stone Age.

[bettyellen]

43. Thanks for the righteous rant, old friend! I did enjoy that.

[Blue_Tires]

35. Don't pretend for a minute any real lessons were learned

CNN/MSNBC/Fox want their ratings-grabbing "horse race" again in 2020 and they'll get it

[Beartracks]

36. No shit! False Equivalence does not make for Fair & Balanced.

It just makes one complicit in disinformation and misinformation.

=========

[mcar]

37. I'm glad to see this

This is what we've wanted, some semblance of self-reflection by the media WRT 2016. To my knowledge, Toobin is the first one who has said this. I give him credit.

Will they do the same thing again? I have little doubt but that they will. But I still give him credit for saying it.

[LanternWaste]

41. Ratings-based news content demands a stark contrast for dramatic purposes.

Ratings-based news content demands a stark contrast for dramatic (ratings) purposes. The false equivalency is one means of achieving that.

For-profit journalism is inherently unable to prioritize objectivity and accuracy above the interests of the shareholders.

Objectivity and accuracy do not care about fairness or balance. Objectivity and accuracy are often casualties of fairness and balance-- e.g., a piece about the moon landings, for fairness and balance, requires a moon-landing denier... which is neither objective nor accurate.

But it's a great vehicle to brand a for-profit news organization with to get more advertisers.

[bullwinkle428]

42. When they pull this shit again in 2020, we'll see how "sincere"

their words are now.

[ismnotwasm]

51. We were fucking screaming this while it was going on

And we were provided with “Hillary Clinton lying for X amount of minutes videos as a response from people who didn’t give a fuck about truth. I am still too angry to care for this persons “regrets”, but I take comfort in the fact that SOMEBODY complicit in that mess has them.

[John Fante]

56. Hillary received more negative press (and less positive press) than any presidential candidate

in the 2016 race, including Gump.

False equivalence? Don't flatter yourself, asshole.

[steve2470]

61. here's my half-baked theory about people like Toobin

1- Many of them are very bright and well-educated, stipulated.
2- They are extremely career-driven.
3- To succeed in political TV journalism, they feel they must, as much as possible, "suck up" to the bosses
4- The immediate supervisors get their orders from higher up, which includes the large investors.
5- Therefore, when the political wind at CNN, MSNBC, et al is going anti-Democratic Party, they fall right in line. What else can they do, tilt at windmills and resign ? That would be the honorable thing to do, but probably career suicide. I'm sure none of these people want to go to work at a "farm league" TV station and sleep well at night, albeit with a much lower paycheck.

[WhiteTara]

63. FU and Too Little Too Late

Now shut up and sit down.

[yallerdawg]

64. There are a number of CNN pundits and hosts...

who practice this 'false equivalency' thing just as much now.

You have to be both discerning and informed to determine what is actually 'news of the day' and what is just trumped-up opinion.

[delisen]

66. Toobin should not be on the air in the role of analyst. CNN

Last edited Tue Jan 30, 2018, 03:58 AM - Edit history (1)

has been irresponsible.

[MariaCSR]

68. All of CNN is guilty of that false equivalence BS not just Toobin

They didn't start giving a damn about "keeping them honest" until Trump called them "Fake News"

They're all complicit.

[Skittles]

72. Hillary was held to impossible standards while Donald was held to ZERO standards

FUCK these "apologies"

[FakeNoose]

88. I hear you and I totally agree

I've been saying the same thing like a broken record for over a year now.

[LAS14]

78. Waiting for the flood of like minded admissions from CNN and MSNBC. nt

[spanone]

84. hey jeff...you OWN trump