The Trump Card...

[RLENT]

You'd think CBS would have learned their lesson with Attkinson ... but they went ahead and hired Catherine Herridge anyways.

 

[RLENT]

Media Matters isn't even credible.

How so ?

In terms of what ?

 

[RLENT]

#someareafraidoffacts

Some are afraid of stuck keys on their keyboards ... go figure ...

 

[muttly]

You'd think CBS would have learned their lesson with Attkinson ... but they went ahead and hired Catherine Herridge anyways.

They're both excellent journalists.
I think the disdain for those two is related to how they're able to report facts that some don't want to hear.
#Yeahthatsit

 

[RLENT]

They're both excellent journalists.

Which is why Attkinson is now with Sinclair - after being booted from CBS - and why Herridge is now with CBS - after having been booted from Fox.

Sure, go with it ...

 

[RLENT]

So it appears that we have at least one that is willing to be a potential witness at the Senate trial:

Man who wore horns at riot willing to speak at Trump's trial

I suspect he probably won't be the last.

I do wonder if his offer is contingent on being able to wear the horns while he testifies ...

 

[muttly]

Which is why Attkinson is now with Sinclair - after being booted from CBS - and why Herridge is now with CBS - after having been booted from Fox.

Sure, go with it ...

Herridge went to CBS, because they made her a better offer.
Attkisson left CBS (a few years ago) because the news division was compromised.

 

[muttly]

So it appears that we have at least one that is willing to be a potential witness at the Senate trial:

Man who wore horns at riot willing to speak at Trump's trial

I suspect he probably won't be the last.

I do wonder if his offer is contingent on being able to wear the horns while he testifies ...

C'mon man. This guy appears to be unstable and "on something".
The impeachment trial of a private citizen is turning into a train wreck. The Dems can't even get the chief justice (who dislikes Trump) to preside because he knows it's a sham trial. They don't have the votes anyway and Joe knows it: "It's over" he said , according to reports from sources familiar with the conversation.
Their Plan B (save face) censor of a private citizen option floated out there in reports isn't any better. It's not even constitutional. Now their using someone that appears to have mental issues as a witness.
#shampeachment

 

[RLENT]

Herridge went to CBS, because they made her a better offer.

That's certainly one way to characterize it.

Fox News departure: Catherine Herridge joins CBS News, saying ‘facts matter’

Seems she wasn't above taking a shot at Fox's News operation on the way out though.

Might not be all about money.

Attkisson left CBS (a few years ago) because the news division was compromised.

Well, if you're inclined to believe her, so was her computer ...

 

[RLENT]

C'mon man. This guy appears to be unstable and "on something".

LOL ... yeah, but ON WHAT ?

The impeachment trial of a private citizen is turning into a train wreck.

I'm guessing that it will be one of the s-l-o-w-e-s-t train wrecks we'll ever have the pleasure of witnessing.

Drag it out for the rest of the year ... depositions, subpoenas, witness testimony ... the whole enchilada.

The Dems can't even get the chief justice (who dislikes Trump) to preside because he knows it's a sham trial.

Did Chief Justice Roberts issue a statement I missed, giving his reasoning ?

Seems to me, after presiding over the first impeachment - and watching the feckless Republicans cower from their civic duty and responsibilities - it could just as easily be that he didn't want to be a party to an encore of that crap show.

Another aspect is adherence to the Constitution:

If you are an originalist or textualist, one reason could be that it's not what the Constitution calls for:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Since Trump is no longer THE President, the Chief Justice presiding is not called for.

They don't have the votes anyway and Joe knows it: "It's over" he said , according to reports from sources familiar with the conversation.

LOL ... it's happening not tomorrow ... let them present the evidence and make their case.

Lindsey says if the Impeachment Managers want witnesses then he wants witnesses.

I say ... bring it ... hopefully he'll be able to do better than Rudy did with Melissa Carone.

Their Plan B (save face) censor of a private citizen option floated out there in reports isn't any better.

Oh ... a censure is a bipartisan gambit.

And I can totally see why it appeals to Republicans.

It's not even constitutional. Now their using someone that appears to have mental issues as a witness.
#shampeachment

We shall see ... right ?

So far as I know, any offer of witness testimony hasn't even been commented on by the Dems, let alone accepted.

 

[muttly]

That's certainly one way to characterize it.

Fox News departure: Catherine Herridge joins CBS News, saying ‘facts matter’

Seems she wasn't above taking a shot at Fox's News operation on the way out though.

Might not be all about money.



Well, if you're inclined to believe her, so was her computer ...

Her shots could have been directed at Shemp, Wallace, and Cavuto. They seem to be challenged with facts sometimes.

 

[RLENT]

Her shots could have been directed at Shemp, Wallace, and Cavuto. They seem to be challenged with facts sometimes.

As does Catherine herself.

 

[muttly]

As does Catherine herself.

Seems better than most at competently reporting the facts.

 

[muttly]

LOL ... yeah, but ON WHAT ?





I'm guessing that it will be one of the s-l-o-w-e-s-t train wrecks we'll ever have the pleasure of witnessing.

Drag it out for the rest of the year ... depositions, subpoenas, witness testimony ... the whole enchilada.





Did Chief Justice Roberts issue a statement I missed, giving his reasoning ?

Seems to me, after presiding over the first impeachment - and watching the feckless Republicans cower from their civic duty and responsibilities - it could just as easily be that he didn't want to be a party to an encore of that crap show.

Another aspect is adherence to the Constitution:

If you are an originalist or textualist, one reason could be that it's not what the Constitution calls for:



Since Trump is no longer THE President, the Chief Justice presiding is not called for.



LOL ... it's happening not tomorrow ... let them present the evidence and make their case.

Lindsey says if the Impeachment Managers want witnesses then he wants witnesses.

I say ... bring it ... hopefully he'll be able to do better than Rudy did with Melissa Carone.





Oh ... a censure is a bipartisan gambit.

And I can totally see why it appeals to Republicans.



We shall see ... right ?

So far as I know, any offer of witness testimony hasn't even been commented on by the Dems, let alone accepted.

The Dems should cut the line on this stinking fish. They are looking like petulant fools having a hissy fit.
There is more evidence of some of their own members inciting than what they have on Trump, which is nothing.
#Bepeaceful&patriotic

 

[RLENT]

The Dems should cut the line on this stinking fish.

Not before they hang it around the Republicans' necks ... it was their previous inaction and failure to do their duty that guaranteed the outcome.

They are looking like petulant fools having a hissy fit.

I don't think so ... but one is entitled to one's opinions.

There is more evidence of some of their own members inciting than what they have on Trump, which is nothing.
#Bepeaceful&patriotic

Well, the real digging hasn't even started yet on the Jan. 5th "war council" meeting in Trump's private residence in Trump Hotel DC ... stay tuned, it will get a lot more interesting before it gets boring.

 

[RLENT]

Seems better than most at competently reporting the facts.

Not really ... she seems to have a little problem with omitting relevant facts that provide critical context.

 

[muttly]

Not really ... she seems to have a little problem with omitting relevant facts that provide critical context.

Sounds like most of "news"media.

 

[RLENT]

Occupational hazard I suppose ...

 

[muttly]

Not before they hang it around the Republicans' necks ... it was their previous inaction and failure to do their duty that guaranteed the outcome.



I don't think so ... but one is entitled to one's opinions.



Well, the real digging hasn't even started yet on the Jan. 5th "war council" meeting in Trump's private residence in Trump Hotel DC ... stay tuned, it will get a lot more interesting before it gets boring.

Says a lot that some of the Democratic members presiding over voting for the sham impeachment & conviction in the House and Senate have made statements specifically that sound like incitement, and their members didn't even admonish them, let alone censure them for such threats. But they have a different standard when it comes to Trump. That tells me they don't have integrity on this shampeachment.

 

[Turtle]

How so ?

In terms of what ?

They are an activist propaganda operation, the flip side of Media Research Center. They don't even pretend to be an honest broker of news.

Herridge went to CBS, because they made her a better offer.
Attkisson left CBS (a few years ago) because the news division was compromised.

Herridge went to CBS possibly because they made her a better offer, but she stated specifically that she wanted to concentrate on original enterprise and investigative journalism, which Fox really can't do. She wasn't booted from Fox.

Sharyl Attkisson wasn't booted from CBS, either. She resigned over repeatedly butting heads with her bosses at CBS over them wanting to spike many of her stories that were critical of people favored by her superiors.

Since Trump is no longer THE President, the Chief Justice presiding is not called for.

Using that logic, since Trump is no longer THE President, convicting and removing from office a private citizen who holds no office is likewise not called for. Just sayin'.

Her shots could have been directed at Shemp, Wallace, and Cavuto. They seem to be challenged with facts sometimes.

Her shots might not have even been shots. Her statement is wide open to any number of interpretations as to meaning, the limits of which are only constricted by the breadth and depth of one's own imagination. If you don't have much of an imagination, you can probably only come up with one or two interpretations. But I do know the CBS Investigative Division is widely known for deeper storytelling and for favoring facts over narrative, which is what she spoke of. Might have been a shot, might not have been. I haven't heard her say one way or the other.

As does Catherine herself.

Got any examples of Catherine Herridge playing fast and loose with the facts (that if were incorrect were not corrected expeditiously)? Three examples should suffice to substantiate such a serious charge.

Sharyl Attkisson most definitely leans to the right politically, but she never injected her bias into her factual investigative reporting. She's a borderline wingnut when it comes to linking vaccines and autism, though, so there is that.

But Katherine Herridge was, in my opinion, the only reporter at Fox News who merited paying close attention. She's one of the very few legit Five Ws journalists these days. Even when asked straight up to give her opinion on a story, she would refuse to do so. I often wondered why she was even at Fox News, since all the other reporters at Fox were (and still are) either stenographers, or they can't get their opinions out of the way of a news story.