#stephanopoulos

[stephanopoulosblog]

Είναι τόσο babygirl 🫶.

~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~•~

He's so babygirl 🫶.

[undergroundusa]

https://www.undergroundusa.com/p/george-stephanopoulos-exposes-his

SHARE & EDUCATE

George Stephanopoulos Exposes His Partisan Constitutional Illiteracy

[socialjusticeinamerica]

[soupy-sez]

Friends, S1E4

[simply-ivanka]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Chad Prather (@watchchad)

FUCK GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS

Piece of shit biased wanna be journalist shithead. Go sailing with Fauci, ass.

[deadpresidents]

Is it true that bill clinton was a night owl and also had a really bad temper?

Oh yeah, President Clinton had a legendarily volcanic temper. There have even been moments in interviews or speeches where he gets annoyed and you'll see a flash of anger in his eyes, his face turns bright red, and he starts pointing his finger at whomever he's speaking with. Some of his former White House aides have written about his temper over the years and said it never lasted very long, but was pretty intense when it happened, and the only thing more uncomfortable was when he would get really mad at someone and he'd give them an icy stare and silent treatment. In his book All Too Human: A Political Education (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO), George Stephanopoulos, who was a senior staff member in the White House during most of Clinton's first term wrote:

"When Hillary was angry, you didn't always know it right away -- a calculated chill would descend over time. [President] Clinton's anger was a more impersonal physical force, like a tornado. The tantrum would form in an instant and exhaust itself in a violent rush. Whoever happened to be in the way would have to deal with it; more often than not, that person was me. I guess Clinton figured that I could fix whatever problem was causing his frustration, and he must have sensed that I didn't take his temper personally. The trick was to have a kind of thin skin -- to understand that Clinton's didn't really yell at you; he yelled through you, as the rage passed through him. My job was to absorb the anger and address its cause."

You can see some hints of Clinton's volatile temper in this 2004 interview with Peter Jennings, this tense back-and-forth with Jerry Brown during a 1992 Democratic Presidential primary debate, and, most famously, throughout the deposition he gave to independent counsel Kenneth Starr regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Believe it or not, another relatively recent President who had an explosive temper was Jimmy Carter. There are quite a few stories about Carter's icy glare and silent treatment when angry, as well as a borderline mean-spirited form of sarcasm when he was really pissed off. In his excellent biography, His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, A Life (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO), author Jonathan Alter wrote:

"Carter enjoyed oddballs but rarely suffered fools. His staff got used to the 'tells' of his annoyance or anger. A vein in his temple throbbed, and his jaw moved. Then came an uncomfortable silence and a stare from his 'icy blues,' enough to make one hide under his desk even though the Governor [Carter] never raised his voice. 'He can curl your hair when he wants to chew you out,' his close friend Bert Lance wrote. 'And he'll flash those eyes at you so brightly you'll need sunglasses.'"

[pennsyltuckyheathen]

Scalise - leader of the corrupt Republicans in the House of Representatives - whose only allegiance is to Trump - refused to say that Election 2020 was not stolen.  This is what our democratic republic is up against - an organized group of seditionists who continue to peddle the biggest political fraud in modern American history.  

VOTE BLUE VOTE BLUE VOTE BLUE VOTE BLUE VOTE BLUE VOTE BLUE

[dadsinsuits]

George Stephanopoulos

[tygerland]

The War Room 1993

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

I think we knew that a federal indictment of former president Donald Trump would elicit a collective primal scream from the right-wing fever swamp — and they have not disappointed.

In true Trump-era fashion, the response from most elected Republicans has been a collective whine about "unfairness" and the "weaponization" of the "deep state." Some have even gone so far as to at least hint around that it's a nice little country we have here, be a shame if anything happened to it. I would expect nothing less. This is how they roll.

There are, notably, a few dissenters from that party line.

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney put out a statement saying that Trump "brought this on himself" and it's "consistent with his other actions offensive to the national interest," which is true. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a 2024 GOP hopeful, said "these facts are devastating," which is also true. But they, and a handful of others, are outliers among GOP elected officials.

One very significant former GOP official has come out swinging, however:

There are a number of Trump defenses out there. But the main talking point, which we can assume was coordinated, is that this is a political prosecution engineered by President Biden to take out his most threatening political rival. And their main proof of this is that the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina probably articulated this the best, including the deployment of some very emotional righteous indignation:

He's not saying it's ok, he's just saying that Hillary Clinton got off so that cancels out Trump's crimes. Or something.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wi. says that Trump refused to prosecute Clinton but Joe Biden sent in a SWAT Team to torment Trump:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sounded the same theme:

“Is there a different standard for a Democrat secretary of state versus a former Republican president? I think there needs to be one standard of justice in this country. Let's enforce it on everybody and make sure we all know the rules.”

It wasn't a perfect defense of Trump but as long as he makes sure to condemn Hillary Clinton is probably good enough for the moment.

As much as I loathe the idea of re-litigating "but her emails," I'm sorry to say that it's necessary. There was almost no pushback to this talking point from the media, probably because they didn't get the Clinton story right in the first place. A few have since stepped up to point out that Clinton didn't refuse to cooperate with the government, as Trump did, although Trump and his accomplices will no doubt cry inanely about her "bleaching the emails" and "smashing the phones" and that will be enough to sustain the argument. Trump may even say "Russia, if you're listening" again. But those allegations are just plain silly and always have been. And the fact that she didn't obstruct the investigation is only part of the story.

As it happened, Clinton copied all work emails to the State Department system so they had them. The Justice Department inspector general issued a report in 2018 about the FBI Investigation and determined that the people tasked with marking documents as classified had not done so clearly. Moreover, only three email chains "contained any classification markings of any kind," and they were low-priority "call sheets" marked with the lowest priority of classification, which had info and details for Clinton to refer to when talking to a foreign leader. There were no nuclear secrets or war plans among them, needless to say.

The State Department under Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo did two separate investigations and found in 2019 that there was "there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information" and that Clinton bore no "individual culpability."

And let's dispense with the "magnanimous" Trump defense. Trump tried desperately to get the DOJ to investigate Clinton (and many others he considered his political enemies.) His White House counsel told him that the DOJ operated independently and if he ordered it there would be tremendous unrest from career officials and massive political blowback. That didn't stop him. He conspired with Matthew Whittaker, then an assistant to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to get Sessions to assign a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton. In the end, they succeeded in getting Sessions to assign John Huber, a US Attorney in Utah to look into all the allegations against Clinton, including the bogus "Uranium One" scandal which had also already been dismissed. That investigation didn't turn up anything either.

Notably, when Bill Barr became Attorney General he looked into all of it and also came up with nothing. If anyone thinks that Barr wouldn't have prosecuted Clinton if he could have doesn't recall just how much he hates her guts. The evidence just wasn't there. So, the FBI, the DOJ Inspector General, two State Department probes, a Clinton-hating attorney general and a U.S. Attorney assigned to review all the evidence found that Clinton committed no crimes. (I'm not even counting the 10 Benghazi investigations which were the genesis of the email scandal —- and also came up empty.)

I know your eyes have glazed over by this point and you wonder why in the world anyone should care about this. And frankly, we shouldn't have to. It's long settled ancient history. But the right's "whatboutism" and the media's continued unwillingness to acknowledge that, once the FBI determined there was no crime, there was no crime, I fear that a lot of people who aren't already down the right wing rabbit hole will be persuaded that this is a partisan prosecution simply because of the words "classified documents."

When former FBI Director James Comey held that first notorious press conference in the summer of 2016, in which he larded with inappropriate personal judgments about Clinton, he laid out the criteria the Justice Department uses when it decides whether to prosecute classified documents cases. He said:

“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Assuming they have proof of the charges in the Trump indictment, there can be little doubt that they met three of those four criteria, (the fourth being disloyalty to the United States which I believe to be true as well.) So when you see these Republicans emitting their epic whines about how unfair all this is because Hillary didn't get indicted, keep in mind that it wasn't for lack of Trump trying to get it done. It was because, unlike him, she didn't break the law. And even Jeff Sessions, Rex Tillerson, Mike Pompeo and Bill Barr couldn't find a way to make it so.

In case you were wondering, yes the House Republicans are considering a new investigation into —- you guessed it —- her emails. Because of course they are.

[brandysamantha]

George even had a “13” written on his hand lol

[bennettmarko]

No American president had ever faced a criminal indictment for retaining and concealing classified documents. No American president had ever faced a federal indictment or a state indictment for trying to overturn an election, or been named an unindicted co-conspirator in two other states for the same crime. No American president has faced hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for business fraud, defamation, and sexual abuse.

Until now, no American presidential race had been more defined by what’s happening in courtrooms than by what’s happening on the campaign trail. The scale of the abnormality is so staggering, that it can actually become numbing. It’s all too easy to fall into reflexive habits, to treat this as a normal campaign, where both sides embrace the rule of law, where both sides are dedicated to a debate based on facts and the peaceful transfer of power. But, that is not what’s happening this election year. Those bedrock tenants of democracy are being tested in a way we haven’t seen since the Civil War. It’s a test for the candidates, for those of us in the media, and for all of us as citizens.

- George Stephanopoulos, This Week, ABC News

[soupy-sez]

Friends, S1E4

[simply-ivanka]

ABC News censors Trump lawyer.

Lawyer was telling the truth. ABC is a media partner for the Democrats.