Mainstream news media hears only liberal whistle blowers

Does Hillary paint houses?

Jeffrey Epstein

Social media went crazy Tuesday with Jeffrey Epstein-didn’t-kill-himself memes. Of course Wheel of Fortune. This is my favorite.

Comment, respond, what do you thinkThe Daily Beast reports that Project Veritas caught an ABC news reporter on a live microphone saying her network quashed the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago!

“It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton, we had everything. I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it’s all coming out, and it’s like these new revelations, and I freaking had all of it.”

If the story did not potentially involve the Clintons (what was up with that portrait of Bill in women’s clothing?) but instead Donald Trump, you think ABC would have quashed it?

This headline got it right: “The media protected Jeffrey Epstein and crucified Brett Kavanaugh.”

Quid, meet the pro

Just because Joe Biden is running for president does NOT excuse him from investigation for corruption.

Guaranteed: If the so-called “whistle-blower” had whistled Joe Biden instead of Donald Trump, we’d be seeing the bloke’s name, address, life history, political contributions and picture on the pages of the Washington Post this very day. Sen. Rand Paul is correct: no law prevents the news media from doing so — not that that should make any difference to the publisher of The Pentagon Papers.

Blaska’s Bottom Lines: 1) What did George Stephanopoulos know and when did he know it? 2) Can you say “Eric Ciaramella”?

What do YOU think?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Mainstream news media hears only liberal whistle blowers

  1. Tom Paine says:

    No way George Stephanopoulos is guilty….he is as pure, honest and forthright as Matt Lauer.
    These guys are just adult Boy Scouts. They can do no wrong.

    Like

  2. patrickmoloughlin says:

    I do recall an episode that was reported back about the same time. There were rumblings about how Bill’s name had appeared on flight logs for the Lolita Express (without his secret service detail,) and that Hillary was furious about it. The rumors were that the story would break soon and put the Hildebeast on the spot. But then…..nothing happened. The story never broke Now I know why.
    .

    Like

    • Batman says:

      Billy boy has not touched Hillary in years (she is smelly) so can anyone really blame him.
      Unrealistic for her to think he became an abstainer regardless of any previous agreement and therefore her fury is unreasonable but not surprising because she is miserable, perpetually angry, and always kvetching about something despite being a very powerful millionaire. If only she could find a hobby.

      Btw; please remember this is a solemn matter, a sad thing, a prayerful moment we take no joy in.
      Term limits~~~> worth a try.

      Like

    • geo_ says:

      You forgot to mention Trump’s flights on the Lolita Express.

      Like

    • madisonexpat says:

      Also the story about 50 congress critters who paid sexual harassment settlements with our money. Who spiked that story?

      Like

  3. geo says:

    What’s the big deal? So a whistleblower isn’t a big fan of trump, who is? The fact remains laws were broken and we are a nation of laws, justice must be served regardless.

    Like

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      @_geo;

      “The fact remains laws were broken and we are a nation of laws, justice must be served regardless.”

      Which laws have been broken?

      The Gotch

      Liked by 1 person

    • David Blaska says:

      Yes, what laws have been broken?

      Like

    • patrickmoloughlin says:

      As others here have recognized, no laws were broken. He could still be impeached over it, but that’s only because impeachment is a political maneuver, not a legal one.

      Like

      • geo_ says:

        The emoluments clause of the US Constitution, and the attempted extorsion of the Ukraine, yes it is extorsion when one refuses to give already approved funds pending the granting of a personal favor. But we all know conservatives are care nothing for the laws of the land.

        Like

        • geo_ says:

          But at least he didn’t get a blowjob in the Oval Office, not that we know of anyways.

          Like

        • dad29 says:

          Perhaps you have a very specific “emolument clause” violation in mind. Please advise, because even the Democrats understand that a President’s taking of money for services rendered is not a violation of same.

          Yes, I know, using “emoluments” in a sentence makes your teacher proud of you.

          I think we’re all still waiting for you to ‘splain how Trump could have strong-armed a guy who had NO IDEA there was a delayed payment on the table.

          Like

    • AnonyBob says:

      Political shakedowns of a smaller country’s president, desperate for military aid to protect his country against Putin’s aggression, to get him to dig up (create) dirt on a Trump opponent? Yeah, nothing to see there…
      My guess is we don’t have a specific law making that criminal because no one dreamed a US President would ever put such blatant self interest above our country’s interests. But that’s why impeachment isn’t limited to criminal actions. And that’s why no Congress critter defends the shakedown, they just attack “the process.”

      Like

      • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

        “My guess is we don’t have a specific law making that criminal because no one dreamed a US President would ever put such blatant self interest above our country’s interests.”

        Poor @AnonyBob, sad @AnonyBob, terminally ButtHurt @AnonyBob; watching his pitiably enfeebled flailing in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible is almost too much to bear.

        Almost.

        One more thing.

        Seems @AnonyBob’s hyper-partisan reality removing Industrial Strength Thickened Weapons Grade Hardened blinders have filtered out something perhaps insignificant; yet, allow The Gotch to provide a friendly little REMINDER notwithstanding.

        (bolds/caps mine throughout)
        “It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, THEY IMPLIED THAT THEIR SUPPORT FOR U.S. ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE WAS AT STAKE.

        “Describing themselves as ‘strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine,’ the Democratic senators declared, ‘We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump,’ before demanding Lutsenko reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.”

        Oh my, Strong-arming Quid Pro Quo is supposed to ONLY be done by EVIL Righties, isn’t it?

        Probably nothing to it, though, right…?

        The Gotch

        Like

        • AnonyBob says:

          Poor Gootch, you sound so sad as you repeat your usual vacuous insults ad nauseam.
          Were the four senators concerned that legitimate corruption investigations were shut down for political reasons? More likely than that they were trying to shakedown the prosecutor for dirt on their election opponents. Try again, but try not to sound so pitiful.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          @AnonyBob;

          Well heck; why didn’t you just say that in the beginning. You know, something like “It’s the same thing, but different because THOSE guys are ideologically certified and Orange Man Bad.

          And sheesh! Not even able to list the correct number of Mafia-Style shakedown Senators; three not four. Unless you counted Menendez twice because of his felonious record.

          The rest of your cluelessly uninformed slobber? Congrats, it’s earned you your Useful Idiot pin; a more deserving…um…recipient there’s never been!

          The Gotch

          Like

        • AnonyBob says:

          Poor, poor, sad little Gootch. Shakedowns for personal gain are the same, to him, as pursuing corruption. Reading and cognition are just not his strong suits.
          Anyhoo…three, four senators, whatever…I confess I don’t read his gibberish too closely. I should stop picking on him. I feel vaguely guilty; low hanging fruit, and all.

          Like

        • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

          @AnonyBob;

          “I confess I don’t read” FULL STOP

          Rather refreshing to see such candor from a career Lefty, especially when he’s 3 years removed from succumbing to a dangerous immersion into a catatonic, apoplectic, pillow-biting, pants $#!tting, bed wetting, wind-sucking, chest palpitating, vital sign triggering, mouth-breathing, weenie-whiny, simpering-whimpering, complete metaphysical, emotional, existential, psychological, philosophical, full-throated, freaking out, melting down, totally collapsing free-fall.

          And confused? OY!

          First you refer to President Trump’s diplomacy, (a Treaty exists between The Ukraine and the good ol’ U. S. of A. to investigate criminal activity and to Prosecute Crimes ) as, and I quote: “Political shakedowns of a smaller country’s president”

          Then you (heh!) explicably conflate the 3…4 Senators as performing, (and this is where it gets GOOD!) “Shakedowns for personal gain”

          @AnonyBob says they’re both doing the same thing, yet then that frightening li’l world rears its ugly head and POOF; they’re different.

          Don’t be like @AnonyBob!

          The Gotch

          Like

  4. Leo says:

    When Trump cops to his (an Guiliani’s) extor5tion plot on Ukraine, I am good with throwing the whistleblower the wolves. But not before. Will Manafort, Stone and Rudy be sharing a prison
    cell? Who plays the prison bitch first? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Like

  5. George's son says:

    Anon-Bob’s UNINFORMATIVE comments make me think of a tiny Capuchin monkey in a pink tutu, tossing sparkly silver sequins in the shape of snowflakes…

    Like

  6. AnonyBob says:

    Sorry, Leo, whistleblowers are entitled by law to anonymity, for good reason.
    Meanwhile, more homophobia from Gootch and Batty. Classy.

    Like

    • Batman says:

      I see you’re still trolling for attention bobo. Wifey ignoring you again?
      Please stop projecting your anti-gay feelings onto others and get a life dude.
      Not funny.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

        @Batman;

        Copy that!

        @Leo issues a blatantly homophobic post, we call out its imbecility, and @AnonyBob’s already sketchy cognition plummets into a reality bereft, nonsensical abyss.

        Unrequited St. Greta luv…?

        #Sad!

        The Gotch

        Like

    • Cornelius Gotchberg says:

      @AnonyBob;

      “whistleblowers are entitled by law to anonymity”

      Tell that to the former ABC AND CBS employee who got sacked for squealing on ABC, and resident midget Stephanopoulus, regarding spiking the Jeffy Epstein story which would have landed the Corruptocrat Clintonistas in DEEP $#!T

      Your laughably bogus information’s a bad joke.

      Governmental whistleblowers are entitled to protection from retaliation and it’s painfully clear you can’t comprehend the difference.

      It gets worse.

      The Hopey Changey/Most Transparent Administration EVAH prosecuted more whistleblowers under the 1917 Progressive Espionage Act than all other administrations COMBINED; so much for their remaining anonymous, am I right?

      Anywho, a gentle reminder; the Horowitz/Durham IG Report’s completion is fast approaching. Seems the findings will have a lot of career Lefties seriously lawyering up before, faced with the prospect of doing real time (and fearing what your pal @Leo intimated above), starting to sing like canaries.

      Happy Holidays!

      The Gotch

      Like

  7. Cornelius Gotchberg says:

    @geo_ (above);

    The Emoluments Clause is a never-been-used, dubious constitutional provision which has never
    been interpreted to apply to businesses owned by a Chief Executive.

    There is precedent for the “the attempted extorsion (sic) of the Ukraine;” the Menendez/Durbin/Leahy LETTER would be one recent example.

    Another would be Jabberin’ Joe bragging: “You’re not getting it (the $1 billion loan guarantee) until he’s (Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin) out. […] I’m leaving in six hours, if the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money.”

    When his authority to withhold the funds is questioned because he’s not Hopey Changey, Biden invites them to call the self-anointed 4th Greatest President EVAH. Guess that makes Hopey accessory, am I right?

    “But at least he didn’t get a blowjob in the Oval Office”

    Seriously? Leaving aside the horrendous inappropriateness of it all, the Former-Serial-Sexual-Predator-In-Chief obstructed justice, suborned perjury, and lied under oath; all felonies which ended up with his being disbarred!

    You’re smarter than that, mon frere, does The Gotch need to recalibrate…?

    The Gotch

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s