Posted by Tina
I didn’t watch the Stormy Daniels interview. In my opinion the attempt to undermine and impeach the President based on 10 year old events that have already been privately addressed and are now being thrust into the media during the left’s sudden decision to purge it’s books of numerous sexual predators that have been tolerated and celebrated for 30-40 years is a waste of time.
Millions of Americans did tune in, 22 million according to Hollywood Reporter, a decade high TV rating for Sixty Minutes.
I will rely on the comments of others in case you saw it and wish to weigh in.
Monica Showalter of The Amercan Thinker:
It’s said a good scandal is one a casual bystander on the street can describe in one sentence.
Well, we aren’t seeing anything like this with the media-pumped Stormy Daniels scandal. Following her much advertised and much watched 60 Minutes interview, all one can ask is, what the heck was this really about? …
… What’s more, we weren’t offered much in titillating sexual details in the 60 Minutes interview, which is what a sizable percentage of viewers were looking for. Cooper seemed most interested in whether a condom was used in the sexual encounter, which kind of gives a whiff as to how exciting this was. What we really heard was a lot about Stormy Daniels not being truthful about agreements she signed, not wanting to follow those agreements, being in league with left-wing political-machine lawyers (Cooper did have useful revelations there), and throwing out vague, hackneyed boilerplate claims about “threats.” None of this impresses. ….
Left leaning legal authority, Johnaton Turly, “ripped” Ms Daniels as “not credible” on “Morning Joe” with co-host Joe Scarborough. Scarborough seemed to share that opinion, according to the article.
Point one. No one on the left or in the left media gave a damn about the women who claimed sexual assault or rape by former President Bill Clinton, nor were they concerned about the ordeal of being targeted for emotional abuse by said media and countless commentators and persons on the left after they came forward. This makes it impossible to care about this ten year old, he-said/she-said, so-called offense.
Point two. Infidelity is one thing, criminal rape and assault is quite another. The left made sure that President Clinton’s criminality was never explored when they ignored and disparaged the women who could provide testimony to that effect.
I’d say that’s just about the last word on media hype about Stormy Daniels’ consensual fling.
Hee, hee, hee.
And you are just playing “Poor, Persecuted Me” about Clinton. We got him disbarred for lying to the court about Jennifer, and don’t think that didn’t pain him. Why do you think he has to scrape a living speechifying? Any other criminality is all of your own invention.
Nor is there anything criminal about The Donald’s many dalliances. His means of covering them up? … that may be another matter.
Hee, hee, hee.
I’m not the persecuted party, Libby, but the women he abused certainly have been at the hands of Bill Clinton and then your party, the media, feminists, and Hillary who dismiss, smear, and slander them to this day!
“Why do you think he has to scrape a living speechifying?”
Please! His personal net worth is set at $80 Million!!! (Some articles claim $100 – $200 Million)
That doesn’t count all the “free” living he does with/for their foundation…touted by the NYT to be a billion dollar operation.
Tina … if you were not poisoned with resentment, you would have been able to perceive the ironic and amused sarcasm in that sentence. Alas …
Resentment? Hardly. Disgust fits perfectly. I am thoroughly disgusted by your party’s sense of justice, morality and civility. I am disgusted by the double standards you employ and then attempt to foist on others.
Which sentence showed irony, amusement, or sarcasm?
Democrat politicians seem to be pretty quiet about this, letting their toads in the media carry the ball. Given the Rat party’s historical support of Clinton and attacking his women victims, the silence makes sense.
It does Pie, especially in an election year.
A number of years ago, (sometime in the ’80’s) I was scheduled to fly outta Phoenix and was the airport watching a interview that was being conducted by the 60 Minutes crew. Just for giggles, I tuned in when the segment aired. The televised segment had cherry-picked answers to questions and had taken them outta context with the result that the opinion expressed was 180 degrees from what the respondent had intended.
From that day forward, I’ve trusted anything from 60 Minutes – or CBS – again. And this was long before Rathergate.
OOPS! Reviewing what I posted, I must admit I screwed up.
That next-to-the-last line should’ve been “From that day forward, I’ve NEVER trusted anything from 60 Minutes – or CBS – again.”
Guess that’ll teach me to proof my posts better. Sorry, folks!
The media’s bias in full display based on the facts. It’s all about what party is in the WH and not what the individual did or didn’t do. The difference in the amount of time the news spent on reporting about the women who accused Clinton of rape and assault compared to Trump having consensual sex with two women is shocking.
‘Brazen double standard’ between coverage of Stormy Daniels and Clinton accusers: report:
“The three networks offered a combined 23 reports about various allegations of sexual impropriety involving President Trump, totaling 40 minutes of airtime the analyses found, with most — 30 minutes — centered on adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Former Playboy Playmate Karen McDougal garnered 8 minutes, while former “Apprentice” contestant Summer Zervos was the subject of just over one minute.
“The media’s hunger for Trump sex scandal stories conflicts with how they treated more serious allegations — workplace sexual harassment and rape — against a Democratic President in the 1990s,” Mr. Noyes said.
He cited Paula Jones and her 1994 allegations that then-Gov. Bill Clinton hadsexually harassed her in a hotel room in 1991. CBS and NBC totally ignored her story while ABC gave those charges just a 16 seconds. The networks ignored the case until Ms. Jones later filed a civil suit.
The analyses also found that Kathleen Willey, who said Mr. Clinton had sexually harassed her, initially only drew 94 seconds of coverage on CBS and NBC, but nothing on ABC. Juanita Broaddrick’s claims in 1998 of similar circumstances, was only covered by NBC , which aired 7 minutes of coverage.
“Two decades ago, when faced with sexual misconduct charges against a Democratic president, supposedly enlightened liberals in the news media could have helped launch something akin to the #MeToo movement. Now they are gleefully covering scandalous charges against a Republican president, leaving one to wonder: Is that a sign that the times have changed, or just the party label of the man in the White House?” asked Mr. Noyes.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/26/brazen-double-standard-between-coverage-of-stormy-/
Juanita Broaddrick: Media Won’t Interview Me About Clinton ‘Because I’m Not a Porn Star’:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/26/stormy-daniels-and-donald-trump-juanita-broaddrick-reacts-talks-bill-clinton
The Media Love Stormy Daniels – But How Did They Treat Bill Clinton’s Accusers?:
“But Donald Trump is not the first President to have been accused of sexual improprieties. When President Bill Clinton faced allegations of sexual harassment from Paula Jones and even a rape charge from Juanita Broaddrick, these same outlets looked for reasons not to cover those charges.
Instead, Clinton’s alleged victims were excoriated in the media for embroiling a Democratic President in scandal. Some questioned the accusers’ motives (ABC’s Charles Gibson: “Is she not trying to capitalize on this?”); others attacked them (Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: “Some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks”); and still others dismissed the stories entirely (Gannett’s Deborah Mathis: “I don’t understand why this is even a case to begin with”).
NewsBusters analysts dug through the MRC’s archives for some of the most egregious examples of the media’s hostility towards these women. To say the least, there was quite a contrast between how each President’s accusers were treated. But don’t take our word for it – the media’s own testimony is proof enough: (Video)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2018/03/23/media-love-stormy-daniels-%E2%80%93-how-did-they-treat-bill-clintons
Peggy in more temperate times that same media carefully avoided reporting at all on the improprieties and criminality of a sitting president and his brother. The left continued to shield Ted for decades to come by reelecting him again and again. Now they want people to buy that they care about such things. The truth is they only care if it could buy something for them…Stormy gets attention and cash and they imagine felling a Republican president and getting power back. Ugly ugly games.
Yup, it’s all about getting the power and keeping it. Hiding the truth by not reporting on it has worked for decades. Why change what’s worked. They won’t.
The difference today is the internet with FaceBook and Twitter, but even there the left is managing to hide the truth by restricting the flow of information.
In my lifetime I can’t think of a sitting republican president going back to Eisenhower who was involved in a sexual scandal. I also can’t think of a sitting democrat president since JFK who wasn’t.
The WH has had a revolving door with women coming and going at all hours of the day and night when a democrat was living there. And the media treats their behavior like they’re just men being men, Bubba being Bubba and creepy Uncle Joe, as he rubs the arms of a 12 year old girl and whispers in her ear, just Joe being Joe.
It would be laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that the media’s lack of coverage and silent acceptance of these past behaviors was observed by young men and women who were taught this was normal and acceptable. Examples set by national leaders passed on to young impressionable minds and future adults.