Here’s why CNN and MSNBC merely whispered yesterday that Hillary Clinton won’t be charged

[Bluestar]

I posted this in LBN, but I was roundly criticized and scolded, even though it is a follow-up to a News Bin article posted in LBN yesterday.

From the article:

Those who have been accurately following the FBI investigation into a Romanian email hacker over the past year are well aware that Hillary Clinton has never been a target of that investigation and that she was never in danger of being charged with any crimes of any kind. In fact the FBI itself spelled that out months ago in exact words. But cable news had been consistently misrepresenting the story for the sake of ratings – until now. Yesterday CNN and MSNBC both finally acknowledged on-air that Clinton won’t be charged with anything, something they’ve known all along.

|http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/cnn-and-msnbc-merely-whispered-hillary-clinton-wont-be-charged/25076/]

[cstanleytech]

1. First off thank you for moving the post to the correct forum.

Second I think its interesting to read the opinion and it was interesting that so much of the news media deliberately distorted the facts.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. And to think many on this board piled on

with the same Media Talking Points. This whole damn story about all the speculation was a gin up by the media to sell ads and jerk ratings.

[Orrex]

3. Throughout the primary I read about it daily on DU

She was going to be charged or arrested or indicted and rendered ineligible to run. Toward the end it took on a clear tone of desperation, a last hope that she'd have to bow out and clear the path for her competitor.

[Wellstone ruled]

5. Funny how one group would

blame the other and spread the same media talking points. Noticed many of these so called informed individuals are no longer doing posts or answering posts. And if there was any hint of a Security Breach concerning Ms Clintons Office,you know darn well the FBI and Secret Service would be all over it. And what happens is some Hacker gets his balls in a vice. The system protections worked.

[RobertEarl]

14. less postings

Across the boards. Some are happy? I heard DU has dropped over 900 places in the web rankings.

[trumad]

17. Oh I'm sure the admins are losing sleep.

Not!

[Wellstone ruled]

24. Noticed a better quality of

material being posted.

[RobertEarl]

25. Not just less postings, but less quality

Maybe the admins are worried. Maybe not. But I sure do not like the trend. It's not like discussions on DU are going to get anybody elected.... although, it did seem in the early days Bernie's campaign made good use of DU. It's as if he were the true, real world, underground candidate!

[geek tragedy]

31. No, the quality is much higher now that the fans of Fox News

and The Daily Caller have taken their toxic crazy talk elsewhere.

[Maru Kitteh]

34. FUX news and RW conspiracy theories were not "quality."

And the greater quantity of Democrats of Democratic Underground do not miss them.

[emulatorloo]

28. You miss all the articles posted from right-wing sources?

I don't.

Don't miss the divisive flamebait either.

[LonePirate]

26. Many piled on because they knew an indictment was the only chance Bernie had to win

Whether they wanted Bernie to win or Hillary to lose is debatable so people can spin it however they want.

[Press Virginia]

4. That means their source was part of yesterday's interview

Comey?

[amandabeech]

6. NO. n/t

[RobertEarl]

7. Whispers

Doubt and innuendo. Will it ever end?

[RobertEarl]

9. It's like an industry

With new products coming out often.

[amandabeech]

12. Unfortunately, it just seems to happen. n/t

[RobertEarl]

13. Like moths to a flame

I guess when you get really rich and elite it isn't just us peasants who notice?

[amandabeech]

15. Carl Bernstein has noticed, and that's why he and others have been calling for

a special prosecutor ever since word came out about Tarmacgate in Phoenix.

I hope that Comey is the stand up kind of guy that everyone says he is. He's the only one who can really put an end to this stuff once and for all.

[RobertEarl]

20. He holds tremendous power

Comey could have quashed the investigation at the start, but he is pushing on.

[geek tragedy]

29. Tarmacgate?

Beyond self-parody at this point.

No special prosecutor for the Hillary Haters.

[Hekate]

35. WTH are they talking about now? A special prosecutor? While Trump has gone full-on anti-Semite?!

Carl Bernstein?

....and some DUers?

[geek tragedy]

36. The cult of the Indictment Fairy is determined. nt

[Hekate]

37. "Clap if you believe!" said Peter Pan. "Save Tinkerbell!"

[charlyvi]

10. I disagree.

I think older Republicans have problems with the Clintons, but not older Democrats. He left office with a 66% approval rating......that number included a lot of older Dems.

On edit: By the way, I'm an older Dem and remember the Clinton years very clearly.

[Control-Z]

16. What is it you're remembering? n/t

[amandabeech]

19. Not appropriate for DU. n.t.

[Control-Z]

33. There isn't one thing I can think of

that would be inappropriate for DU. Since the Lewinsky situation was the one, and only one, example that could be considered real (kind of) what could you possibly be referring to?

[charlyvi]

21. I am 65 and remember quite clearly

that everything except Lewinsky was bullshit. Utter bullshit. The right had accused him of so much, that the one thing Kenneth Starr finally found, the blow job in the oval office and lying about it, seemed a bit more than trivial, but not much. Then they tried to impeach him. Here's what a President has to do to be impeached:

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

I hardly think a married man lying about a blow job meets this definition. And the Senate agreed.

The right wing came into their prime during the Clinton presidency. They threw everything at him, and her, that they could find and it didn't work. So when you say most older people didn't approve of the Clintons, facts don't agree with your narrative. Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project It got so bad a very liberal organization was formed in reaction to it Moveon.org. The right wing tried to perpetrate a coup in our country. I don't mean to dismiss what you feel, or hurt you in any way. But when you say you're feeling "deja vu all over again" then you should be mad as hell, not despondent or frozen.

[Hekate]

38. Plus a bajillion

[trumad]

18. Dumbest post of the year.

[geek tragedy]

30. Did that one mention "Tarmacgate?"

Because I think that is tough to beat.

[Capt. Obvious]

22. Newsbin was posted in LBN?

That's hilarious.

[thesquanderer]

23. The News Bin article didn't belong in LBN either, though it contained possibly a sliver of it.

But I do wonder about this part:

Hillary Clinton has never been a target of that investigation and that she was never in danger of being charged with any crimes of any kind. In fact the FBI itself spelled that out months ago in exact words.

Anyone have a link to that FBI comment? I'd like to see those "exact words."

[scscholar]

27. Considering they wouldn't even confirm there was an investigatin...

this isn't surprising.

[Night Watchman]

32. Daily News Bin?

I'm With Her all the way, but I'd never even heard of DNB before yesterday.

[Doctor Jack]

39. I swear i see 100 "news" organizations referenced here....

....every month that I have never heard of. During the height of the sanders supporters posting stories about the imment indightment there were so many articles from no name websites( i remember 1 had an alexa ranking of about 470,000) and "reporters" that were 18 years old with 7 twitter followers and no evidence that they knew the first thing about journalism.

You have to be careful. CNN might be a bit...frustrating to read but its a lot more credible than NewsBiz.tv or GindingMedia.org or LittleBillysFirstNewsSite.com or whatver