How much do you trust the news media (here in the States)?

[Stadler]

Imagine putting stock in a Brooke Baldwin segment. 

Love ya Stads.

Why not?  We put stock in a Sean Hannity segment or a Laura Ingalls segment to run Fox through the mud as Nazi propagandists and election influencers.  (Because I have to be fair, I want it clear that when Sean Hannity calls the rest of the media "Mainstream media morons", as he did once in the 12 minutes I watched while at my parents last week, he's dead wrong, and in no way shape or form furthering democracy, or protecting the sanctity of the fourth estate. He's a thug and a slanderer, in my opinion.  I'm calling out CNN because the presumption is that CNN is in the right, is ethical, and trustworthy.  If you're going to call out "news" for swaying public opinion, you have to be fair.) 

And it's not just Baldwin.   If "contempt and disgust" were a dress, Jake Tapper would be ready for the prom.  At one point, he described the ALLEGED - unproven! - actions of the White House, then looks at the camera and with zero irony says "we'll leave it to the American public to decide if that's how people with nothing to hide act."   Due process, bitch.  You can use prior acts as evidence of guilt - in a courtroom, in front of a judge and jury - but you can't use the very fact of availing yourself of due process as evidence of your guilt.  Think of it in terms of the cops and a warrant; if a cop comes to your door and says "Hey, Longhair, mind if we take a look around?" and you say "not without a warrant, Pig", is that - or rather, should that be - evidence of your guilt?

One of the companies I represent was served with a subpoena last week; I sent a return letter today indicating that we're objecting to the service and that we would not be providing any information.   I didn't do that because we have anything to hide (we're not even a party to the underlying lawsuit).  I did it to test the seriousness of the request (it takes time and money to produce information under a subpoena and we're not spending time doing that for fishing expeditions) and to narrow the focus ("Okay, we'll comply but just with this and this, not that and that."  "Agreed".) 

[TAC]

I see an offensive word!

[El Barto]

So BIG STORY on CNN this afternoon:  Ellen DeGeneres - for those that don't know, she's a comedian, liberal activist, and very famously came out as homosexual on Oprah while her character in her prime time comedy series also came out (to a therapist played by Winfrey) - sat next to George W. Bush at the Green Bay-Dallas football game played this weekend in Dallas.   

She actually had to DEFEND her relationship (and did so, admirably, I feel).   Brooke Baldwin ran through a montage of famous liberals - Michelle Obama, Bono, Ellen - who have embraced, both literally and figuratively, President Bush, and at one point, Baldwin, with not a little self-satisfaction, stated "I had breakfast with Stacey Abrams* the other day, and she said 'People would be surprised that my best friend is a white Republican!'"

My god! These people!  Friends with Republicans!  And WHITE PEOPLE!   What are they thinking?

That's the point though; the whole tone and tenor of the story was how "wonderful" (at one point, Baldwin said "let's just pause a minute here...   Ellen." and she started a slow clap) these selfless and kind and giving liberal Democrats are for cavorting with white Republican monsters.  Veritable spawn of Beelzebub!   

* Former Georgia State Representative and Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in 2018, who lost a contested election (I do not believe she has conceded that election to this day).

Just to throw out a bit of counterpoint, I saw that pretty early yesterday on FOX. Ellen DeGeneres stands up to Twitter mob. I couldn't help but wonder how many tweets constitutes a mob, so much that it's actually newsworthy. She used the phrase "a lot of people." The whole tone of the FOX article was, you paraphrased it quite well, "she actually had to DEFEND her relationship!" Fodder for the comments section at the bottom. You're citing the tone and tenor of self-aggrandizement. I'm citing the tone and tenor of drum-beating.

In the meantime, anybody with a sizeable twitter following is going to have crackpots chiming in. The reality is that this is simply a Seinfeld episode. It's about nothing and it means nothing. Sure sounds good, though.

[KevShmev]

I swear, when I saw that shot of Ellen sitting next to W. the other day at the game, I knew a bunch of people on Twitter were going lose their shit.  Then again, people on Twitter lose their shit over everything. 

[Chino]

I bet it was a total of only 20-30 people giving her shit

[Harmony]

So BIG STORY on CNN this afternoon:  Ellen DeGeneres had to DEFEND her relationship (and did so, admirably, I feel).   Brooke Baldwin ran through a montage of famous liberals - Michelle Obama, Bono, Ellen - who have embraced, both literally and figuratively, President Bush, and at one point, Baldwin, with not a little self-satisfaction, stated "I had breakfast with Stacey Abrams* the other day, and she said 'People would be surprised that my best friend is a white Republican!'"

This is (to quote DT) a "perfect" example of why all cable 'news' sucks ass.  I simply do not understand why people waste time with this drivel.  WTF is newsworthy about this story?

Edit to add:  I have no problem with anyone watching cable news shows for entertainment value.  I watch a ton of drivel on t.v. for fun, I just don't pretend I'm looking for substantive content when I do so.

[Adami]

Because the primary aim of the news networks is not to provide news.

[XeRocks81]

I'm calling out CNN because the presumption is that CNN is in the right, is ethical, and trustworthy.

*greasy mechanic looking up at a car on a lift*  Yup,  there's your problem right there.   
 

[Stadler]

I say this in jest, because I'm trying very hard not to actually put words in anyone's mouth, but from the last six posts or so, I'll assume that we're all in agreement that the various assaults on Fox News for swaying elections and what not is pure crap.  They're not brainwashing the "base", they're not promoting hate, they're not unduly influencing voters, they're not undermining democracy, any of those things that they've been accused of and they are merely broadcasting irrelevant Twitter-bait entertainment, which is what it seems we're agreeing CNN is doing (the main point of my post, not the stuff about Twitter, the relative numbers involved, etc.).  I don't disagree even a little bit with the drivel-ness and the irrelevance of the story, I'm commenting on the general reception to that drivel.  THIS is in part what Trump is noting as "Fake News", and for which he's accused of destroying democracy, and perhaps worse. 

El Barto, I'm not citing the tone and tenor of the self-aggrandizement (though I certainly noted that), I'm too citing the tone and tenor of the drum-beating, and to a lessor degree of course the not-subtle implication that it's ELLEN that is bearing the phenomenal burden, enduring the monumental sacrifice here, not Bush or the "white Republican" befriending Stacey Abrams. 

[Harmony]

I say this in jest, because I'm trying very hard not to actually put words in anyone's mouth, but from the last six posts or so, I'll assume that we're all in agreement that the various assaults on Fox News for swaying elections and what not is pure crap.  They're not brainwashing the "base", they're not promoting hate, they're not unduly influencing voters, they're not undermining democracy, any of those things that they've been accused of and they are merely broadcasting irrelevant Twitter-bait entertainment, which is what it seems we're agreeing CNN is doing (the main point of my post, not the stuff about Twitter, the relative numbers involved, etc.).  I don't disagree even a little bit with the drivel-ness and the irrelevance of the story, I'm commenting on the general reception to that drivel.  THIS is in part what Trump is noting as "Fake News", and for which he's accused of destroying democracy, and perhaps worse. 

El Barto, I'm not citing the tone and tenor of the self-aggrandizement (though I certainly noted that), I'm too citing the tone and tenor of the drum-beating, and to a lessor degree of course the not-subtle implication that it's ELLEN that is bearing the phenomenal burden, enduring the monumental sacrifice here, not Bush or the "white Republican" befriending Stacey Abrams.

Nobody is saying cable news shows aren't influential.  I'm not sure how you've leapt to this erroneous conclusion.  People gravitate toward and buy into stupid shit all the time.  Have this crap running 24/7 and it will most definitely influence the way you see the world.

What I'm suggesting is that people turn this shit off before it completely rots their grey matter.  Because the people who watch this drivel day in and day out are in a very real way responsible for it.  If these shows didn't have viewers and people suddenly got some backbone and turned the crap off, then they would either have to change and adapt or they'd go away all together.  My preference would be for the latter, but people demanding more from their "news" media would be fine too.

[Stadler]

I say this in jest, because I'm trying very hard not to actually put words in anyone's mouth, but from the last six posts or so, I'll assume that we're all in agreement that the various assaults on Fox News for swaying elections and what not is pure crap.  They're not brainwashing the "base", they're not promoting hate, they're not unduly influencing voters, they're not undermining democracy, any of those things that they've been accused of and they are merely broadcasting irrelevant Twitter-bait entertainment, which is what it seems we're agreeing CNN is doing (the main point of my post, not the stuff about Twitter, the relative numbers involved, etc.).  I don't disagree even a little bit with the drivel-ness and the irrelevance of the story, I'm commenting on the general reception to that drivel.  THIS is in part what Trump is noting as "Fake News", and for which he's accused of destroying democracy, and perhaps worse. 

El Barto, I'm not citing the tone and tenor of the self-aggrandizement (though I certainly noted that), I'm too citing the tone and tenor of the drum-beating, and to a lessor degree of course the not-subtle implication that it's ELLEN that is bearing the phenomenal burden, enduring the monumental sacrifice here, not Bush or the "white Republican" befriending Stacey Abrams.

Nobody is saying cable news shows aren't influential.  I'm not sure how you've leapt to this erroneous conclusion.  People gravitate toward and buy into stupid shit all the time.  Have this crap running 24/7 and it will most definitely influence the way you see the world.

What I'm suggesting is that people turn this shit off before it completely rots their grey matter.  Because the people who watch this drivel day in and day out are in a very real way responsible for it.  If these shows didn't have viewers and people suddenly got some backbone and turned the crap off, then they would either have to change and adapt or they'd go away all together.  My preference would be for the latter, but people demanding more from their "news" media would be fine too.

It's not an erroneous conclusion.  I very much meant the "in jest" to be sincere.  I was just making the point that there's a lot of criticism here and elsewhere (including at the Presidential level when Barack was in office) about Fox News, and it's almost taken for granted they are fools and lackeys and partisan stooges (at least as regards the opinion-tainment staff - Hannity, Carlson, Ingalls - I agree).   I'm regularly making the case, and this is just the latest example, that CNN - widely praised and defended because of the attacks of the OTHER President, Trump, widely deemed unfair and inappropriate - is every bit as bad (though I might even argue that their subtlety makes them even WORSE). I fully agree with you: just turn this crap off.  But it doesn't seem like this is happening.

Whether it's one, 10, or 10,000 people noting this, it's being noted.  You yourself asked "why is this newsworthy", and I agree, but why wasn't it Brook Baldwin pointing that out?  Why isn't SHE saying "why is this even a story", reinforcing that ANY partisanship, any implication that we're not all humans at heart, instead of giving the slow-clap, not-so-subtlely reinforcing that idea that it's a legitimate question to ask why ANYONE would be friends with George Bush?  I've been phrasing it in the form of a question, in order to stimulate conversation, but more directly, I think Brook is answering your question: it's newsworthy because the partisanship on the left is just as strong (if not stronger) than on the right, and the partisanship at CNN is just as strong (if not stronger) than that of Fox News, et al.  I just wish that was acknowledged more readily, is all.   I don't think anyone here is stupid - I look up to several of the intellects here, and that's not hyperbole - but not one person acknowledged that dichotomy/hypocrisy, and I think that's telling.  Not about the people here, but about the perception of the players in our partisan society today.   

Let me ask this (not just of you, Harmony, but anyone reading):  Do you believe Fox News influenced the 2016 election negatively?   Do you believe they are promoting hate, divisiveness and thereby undermining our democracy?  If yes to any of these, are you outraged by that?

[Harmony]

I fully agree with you: just turn this crap off.  But it doesn't seem like this is happening.

Then why do you watch it?  Do you not see that you are a) being influenced by it and b) contributing to the fact that it has influence by your committed viewership?

why wasn't it Brook Baldwin pointing that out?

I don't know who Brook Baldwin is and nor do I give a rat's ass who she is.  That said, I doubt she has much imput into what she reads off the teleprompter put in front of her.

Let me ask this (not just of you, Harmony, but anyone reading):  Do you believe Fox News influenced the 2016 election negatively?   Do you believe they are promoting hate, divisiveness and thereby undermining our democracy?  If yes to any of these, are you outraged by that?

It is difficult to be "outraged" by something I do not watch.  You should try it sometime. 

Something I keep trying to point out to you is that FOX and CNN have the same interest in keeping many of the same stories alive. FOX is every bit as keen to keep impeachment in the news, as every day it's discussed is a win for the right. There's really no difference in the coverage except the way it's presented.

Strike out impeachment news and replace it with Ellen and GWB "news" and this is essentially the same exact point I'm making.  And it's beginning to feel like the only thing worse than watching cable news shows is talking about why I don't watch cable news shows.

[Stadler]

But - and I'm having this same conversation with Kattelox in another thread - why the disconnect in assessing media?  Why does Fox News get dragged through the mud by Obama and Clinton, and it's "dude, turn the channel, it's better for your health" (not an unreasonable point, by the way), but when Trump drags CNN through the mud it's fascism and an assault on our fourth estate, a fundamental pillar of our democracy? 

I'm not so bugged by Brooke Baldwin personally, it's not my agita that I'm writing about, I'm using that as an example - and an ongoing one so that at one point it can't be dismissed as a blip on the radar - to make a larger point. i.e. that there is little to no difference between CNN and Fox in this regard.  (And by the way, this begs the question: wouldn't they offset?  If Hillary blames Fox for her loss, where does CNN fit in?  Does that JUSTIFY Trump's claims?)

And that is, in a nutshell:  I think the long-documented media bias is slipping into the zeitgeist.  I think of all the things that we've criticized here and elsewhere over the last couple years, one of the most disturbing and potentially dangerous of all of them is the fact that one of the top three largest news outlets in the world has blithely pushed the idea that be-friending a REPUBLICAN (and not even an extremist, but rather our ex-President) is an act of courage, of sacrifice and a commendable act of humanity.  And to make matters worse, that's not even acknowledged, or seemingly noticed here (forget about whether you agree with me or not that's not the point). 

[XeRocks81]

what if some people just don’t want to have a goddamn opinion on Ellen hanging with W? 

[Stadler]

what if some people just don’t want to have a goddamn opinion on Ellen hanging with W?

That's not even at issue.  Don't.  This isn't about any one person's opinion. It's about a self-styled, bipartisan and objective news organization - widely touted to be an "antidote" to the toxicity of Fox News - blatantly and unapologetically taking the stance that it is a news-worthy and honorable thing to reach down, lower oneself, and actually deign to hobnob with a conservative.  They reported on this in what seemed to me to be almost the exact same tone as the reporting on the victim's brother in Dallas hugging the convicted murderer.   

[El Barto]

Shep Smith wanting out at FOX doesn't surprise me. It always seemed like he was the Colmes of their news department, and that can't be fun. Something else that, sadly, doesn't surprise me is that he was the least popular of their hosts. I guess it's to be expected that FOX watchers prefer people who spout opinions rather than report news.

[TAC]

I used to watch Fox News a lot years ago, and I always liked him.

[El Barto]

Interesting that Smith leaves less than 24 hours after Trump blasts him and Barr takes time from his busy schedule running the DOJ to meet with Murdoch. As of now I'm taking Smith at his word that he wanted out, but that's certainly one helluva bit of peculiar timing.

[TAC]

I saw that Barr met with Murdoch. WTF? Trump is not happy with Fox lately, so he sends Barr to set them straight?

That's fucked.

[Kattelox]

That's another big difference between FOX and CNN. Obama never did ANYTHING like that nor did any of his cronies to do the same.

[Stadler]

That's another big difference between FOX and CNN. Obama never did ANYTHING like that nor did any of his cronies to do the same.

Because they don't have to. 

[Stadler]

Well, we're at it again. 

I don't know if anyone watched the Mick Mulvaney press conference, but I did (at least part of it).  And I heard the part where Mick Mulvaney answered a direct and specific question about Ukraine and the funding.   He laid out three reasons for the withholding of funds to Ukraine:  to check whether other countries were giving a commensurate amount, to check whether it was a smart move (due to corruption in the Ukraine) and for help with an investigation into the 2016 election issues.  He directly and clearly said that it was NOT a quid pro quo for an investigation on the Bidens, but that the rest was something that happens "all the time" (note, that Biden's position on the $1 billion loan guarantee was itself a quid pro quo.)

Brooke Baldwin almost fell out of her chair in disbelief, she was shaking her head so hard.  She brought on Jim Acosta to comment (as he was in the press conference), who then promptly claimed that Mulvaney basically said "if the President does it, it must be legal".  That's NOT AT ALL what Mulvaney said.  Then Acosta said that Mulvaney "admitted" to a quid pro quo of funding in exchange for investigating political rivals.  That is NOT what Mulvaney said. 

Now, that's not to say that what Mulvaney said or what Trump did was legal or not, but again I have to ask:  if Trump is SO bad, why do certain sectors continually have to mis-state and misrepresent what he's done?  Why the need to prevaricate on this issue? (And I'll remind: this isn't about me watching; this is about the supposedly neutral, supposedly objective press taking sides and painting the story, while constantly claiming that "painting the story" is a bad thing.)

[El Barto]

Well, we're at it again. 

I don't know if anyone watched the Mick Mulvaney press conference, but I did (at least part of it).  And I heard the part where Mick Mulvaney answered a direct and specific question about Ukraine and the funding.   He laid out three reasons for the withholding of funds to Ukraine:  to check whether other countries were giving a commensurate amount, to check whether it was a smart move (due to corruption in the Ukraine) and for help with an investigation into the 2016 election issues.  He directly and clearly said that it was NOT a quid pro quo for an investigation on the Bidens, but that the rest was something that happens "all the time" (note, that Biden's position on the $1 billion loan guarantee was itself a quid pro quo.)

Brooke Baldwin almost fell out of her chair in disbelief, she was shaking her head so hard.  She brought on Jim Acosta to comment (as he was in the press conference), who then promptly claimed that Mulvaney basically said "if the President does it, it must be legal".  That's NOT AT ALL what Mulvaney said.  Then Acosta said that Mulvaney "admitted" to a quid pro quo of funding in exchange for investigating political rivals.  That is NOT what Mulvaney said. 

Now, that's not to say that what Mulvaney said or what Trump did was legal or not, but again I have to ask:  if Trump is SO bad, why do certain sectors continually have to mis-state and misrepresent what he's done?  Why the need to prevaricate on this issue? (And I'll remind: this isn't about me watching; this is about the supposedly neutral, supposedly objective press taking sides and painting the story, while constantly claiming that "painting the story" is a bad thing.)

No idea what your point is. This is something we all know happens, and has happened for many years. Recall all the times I've mentioned Hitler kicking his dog? Misrepresenting the other guy's position is an old and well known story. Death panels? Post-partum abortion? Basket of deplorables?

[Stadler]

Well, we're at it again. 

I don't know if anyone watched the Mick Mulvaney press conference, but I did (at least part of it).  And I heard the part where Mick Mulvaney answered a direct and specific question about Ukraine and the funding.   He laid out three reasons for the withholding of funds to Ukraine:  to check whether other countries were giving a commensurate amount, to check whether it was a smart move (due to corruption in the Ukraine) and for help with an investigation into the 2016 election issues.  He directly and clearly said that it was NOT a quid pro quo for an investigation on the Bidens, but that the rest was something that happens "all the time" (note, that Biden's position on the $1 billion loan guarantee was itself a quid pro quo.)

Brooke Baldwin almost fell out of her chair in disbelief, she was shaking her head so hard.  She brought on Jim Acosta to comment (as he was in the press conference), who then promptly claimed that Mulvaney basically said "if the President does it, it must be legal".  That's NOT AT ALL what Mulvaney said.  Then Acosta said that Mulvaney "admitted" to a quid pro quo of funding in exchange for investigating political rivals.  That is NOT what Mulvaney said. 

Now, that's not to say that what Mulvaney said or what Trump did was legal or not, but again I have to ask:  if Trump is SO bad, why do certain sectors continually have to mis-state and misrepresent what he's done?  Why the need to prevaricate on this issue? (And I'll remind: this isn't about me watching; this is about the supposedly neutral, supposedly objective press taking sides and painting the story, while constantly claiming that "painting the story" is a bad thing.)

No idea what your point is. This is something we all know happens, and has happened for many years. Recall all the times I've mentioned Hitler kicking his dog? Misrepresenting the other guy's position is an old and well known story. Death panels? Post-partum abortion? Basket of deplorables?

I said my point in the last sentence.  As for your examples:

Death panels?   Sarah Palin, CANDIDATE
Post-partum abortion? Donald Trump, CANDIDATE
Basket of deplorables?  Hillary Clinton, CANDIDATE

This?  The journalists that are empowered and entrusted to tell us a truth (maybe not THE truth, but a truth that stands up to the facts). We've been told, not wrongly, that the very reason that Trump's "Fake News" is reportedly so dangerous is because it creates doubt and speculation as to the veracity of the fourth estate, what we're told (and again I agree, by the way) is a necessary part of democracy.

And I'm highlighting here that it's not JUST Trump's false claims that are damaging the credibility of our fourth estate, it's THEIR VERY WORDS as well.   If some of you don't want to take CNN as a fair representative of mainstream media or don't want to take Brooke Baldwin and Jim Acosta as examples of real journalists - as opposed to opinion-tainment celebrities like Hannity - so be it, you can disagree, but I'm pointing out that maybe, just maybe, it's not all as one-sided as some are making it out to be.  (I would also note that it can't work both ways; if Acosta is not credible here to tell the truth, then why does it matter when Trump excludes him singularly from a press conference?) 

[El Barto]

Basket of deplorables?  Hillary Clinton, CANDIDATE

Yeah, I think you missed my point about who was doing the misrepresentation. 

Do you honestly think that the media hasn't been doing this very same thing, including the propagation of death panels and post-partum abortions since before Trump? They have. They might not have been quite as overt, but it's been there all along.

[Stadler]

Basket of deplorables?  Hillary Clinton, CANDIDATE

Yeah, I think you missed my point about who was doing the misrepresentation. 

Do you honestly think that the media hasn't been doing this very same thing, including the propagation of death panels and post-partum abortions since before Trump? They have. They might not have been quite as overt, but it's been there all along.

Nah, just wasn't  biting. 

As to the media, of course, they've been doing it for over a decade.  As we've moved into this hyper partisan age, progressively over the past 20 to 25 years or so, the media has been there with us, hip-to-hip.  Again, I'm just pointing out the disconnect between pointing at Trump for the hyperbolic destruction of our nation, and just partisan (and/or uninformed) judgment, and the singling out of Fox News as the willing conspirator in that destruction.

I think there are a TON of things to rightfully point at Trump about, but it just seems to me that we keep focusing on the wrong ones.   I'm not big on nicknames and such, but if I was, I'd start calling Trump "OJ", because the outcome is going to be the same:  he's going to have really committed a serious, egregious crime, but because that's hard, we're going to settle on the right answers for the wrong reasons (ala the burglary charge).

[hefdaddy42]

Mulvaney said that the funds were withheld at least in part because of a request to have Ukraine investigate unfounded allegations that foreign countries assisted Democrats in the 2016 election.

That IS a quid pro quo.  Which is the opposite of what the administration has been declaring ("There was no quid pro quo!").

Did he admit to the EXACT quid pro quo that has been alleged(investigating the Bidens)?  No.  But I'm not sure that Acosta should be accosted for saying that he admitted to a quid pro quo (I say "I'm not sure" because I didn't see Acosta).

BTW, I don't give a fuck about Brooke Baldwin, and I don't know anyone who does.  I wouldn't know her if I saw her.

[eric42434224]

Basket of deplorables?  Hillary Clinton, CANDIDATE

Yeah, I think you missed my point about who was doing the misrepresentation. 

Do you honestly think that the media hasn't been doing this very same thing, including the propagation of death panels and post-partum abortions since before Trump? They have. They might not have been quite as overt, but it's been there all along.

Nah, just wasn't  biting. 

As to the media, of course, they've been doing it for over a decade.  As we've moved into this hyper partisan age, progressively over the past 20 to 25 years or so, the media has been there with us, hip-to-hip.  Again, I'm just pointing out the disconnect between pointing at Trump for the hyperbolic destruction of our nation, and just partisan (and/or uninformed) judgment, and the singling out of Fox News as the willing conspirator in that destruction.

I think there are a TON of things to rightfully point at Trump about, but it just seems to me that we keep focusing on the wrong ones.   I'm not big on nicknames and such, but if I was, I'd start calling Trump "OJ", because the outcome is going to be the same:  he's going to have really committed a serious, egregious crime, but because that's hard, we're going to settle on the right answers for the wrong reasons (ala the burglary charge).

Pointing it out to whom?  No one here is blaming Trump for destroying our Nation, or singling out Fox for the same.
These are the straw man arguments you keep bringing up....its like you are arguing with the ghosts from Twitter or the Yahoo News Article Comment Section.

Constant diatribes against CNN hosts, coupled with defending against specific hyperbolic attacks on Trump and Fox against....well no one here really, coupled with relative silence about the shitty things that Trump and his administration are ACTUALLY doing...right now......tends to eventually turn from looking like an over zealous contrarian, to Trump apologist.

Seriously...we aren't arguing against 90% of what you rail against in PR.

[eric42434224]

Mulvaney said that the funds were withheld at least in part because of a request to have Ukraine investigate unfounded allegations that foreign countries assisted Democrats in the 2016 election.

That IS a quid pro quo.  Which is the opposite of what the administration has been declaring ("There was no quid pro quo!").

Did he admit to the EXACT quid pro quo that has been alleged(investigating the Bidens)?  No.  But I'm not sure that Acosta should be accosted for saying that he admitted to a quid pro quo (I say "I'm not sure" because I didn't see Acosta).

BTW, I don't give a fuck about Brooke Baldwin, and I don't know anyone who does.  I wouldn't know her if I saw her.

And now Mulvaney is saying the press is purposely misconstruing what he said, and that he REALLY said there was NO quid pro quo.  Oy vey.

[El Barto]

And now Mulvaney is saying the press is purposely misconstruing what he said, and that he REALLY said there was NO quid pro quo.  Oy vey.

And he's right. He did and they are.