Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Give That Man A DB

It was only a matter of  time before the deranged American mainstream media turned on one of the few decent newspapers, The Wall Street Journal.

Apparently the FNK (Fake News Media) think the WSJ is giving Pres Trump an easy ride.  (Can anyone remember when CNN, NYT, CBS, WAPO, ABC, MSNBC et al during the last eight years gave Obama and Clinton anything other than an armchair ride?  Hell, CNN even slipped presidential debate questions to Clinton so she could rehearse.)

The editor of the WSJ has hit back and has suggested that any of his reporters who don't like the paper's approach should be working somewhere else.


Wall Street Journal Editor in Chief Gerard Baker on Monday aggressively defended the newspaper against criticism that its reporting on President Donald Trump has been soft, saying the coverage has aimed to hold the new administration accountable without becoming “oppositional.”.......

..........Monday’s event came after multiple media reports, citing unnamed news employees, described internal rancor at the Journal over its approach to covering the Trump administration under Mr. Baker’s leadership. 

Mr. Baker said he has found it “irritating” to read critiques of the Journal’s coverage of Mr. Trump. He rattled off a string of Journal exclusives and in-depth articles as evidence of the paper’s aggressive coverage, including reporting on the president’s business conflicts and foreign dealings and the recent controversy surrounding Michael Flynn, his national security adviser.
“Don’t let anyone tell you our reporting on Donald Trump has been soft,” he said. “It’s been extremely tough.” Referring to the notion that the Journal has been timid, he said, “you might even call it fake news.”

Give that man a DB


David said...

Meanwhile the WSJ reports that Flynn's future is under consideration while both the waPo and Aus ABC have reported Flynn has "resigned".


Now, let's see how long before he is in court.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


With what do you in your capacity as expert on American law expect him to be charged?

David said...

1. Violation of the emoluments clause in the constitution that prohibits receiving $ from foreign govts. Flynn received $ from Russian government.

2. Violation of the Logan Act when he made his Xmas call to Russian ambassador telling him not to respond to Obama's sanctions. The Logan Act prohibits civilians from negotiating with a foreign power.

3. Terminal stupidity in not realizing that the agencies he criticized, the agencies he was charged to oversee, routinely tap the Russian Embassy's phones.

And, although it is not a crime, lying to the VP and conning the VP in to lying on your behalf, proves unsuitability for any office.

Consider your education enhanced.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

As I thought, your knowledge of the Logan Act appears limited. You'll have to wait through Obama's trial, Clinton's trial and Kerry's trial if you want to see one for Flynn.

Your so-called point 1. Just who, in particular, is prohibited from receiving dollars from a foreign government?

Anonymous said...

First President to not have sources included in his daily briefs.
Now why would that be?

David said...

As I thought, your knowledge of the Logan Act appears limited.

If mine is limited, yours is non-existent.

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

This certainly applies to Flynn, but I don't see how you could think it applies to Obama or either Clinton. I guess you've just got your alternative facts.

Your so-called point 1. Just who, in particular, is prohibited from receiving dollars from a foreign government?

Try this on for size.


paul scott said...

We don't have to have trial for the traitor Islamobama do we /?
Surely its best to hang him before he gets the civil war organised.
Then Clinton him, then Clinton her,
Ok Ok have a trial first all intogether, and then hang them.