Posted on 09/27/2016 10:19:25 AM PDT by Publius
Classic good cop, bad cop. Positions Trump above the fray.
The birther thing thrown at Trump was ridiculous, and Hillary’s comments were so bogus.
Blaming Trump for what she did when debating Obama yrs ago, she called Obama out for not being a citizen.
Holt did NOT hold her accountable on that.
But his job was to fact check Trump and lie about things he “did” and let Hillary lie and lie.
Let Michael Savage be the moderator
Ingraham yes, Carlson NO.
TC is no where near politically savvy or smart enough to do a good job.
He "used" to be a leftist and still is actually who puts his finger to the wind to see what he should "think".
He's weak and no match for Hillary.
He's so proud to be a host on F&Fs weekend, and is now Fox News' Alisyn Camerota
He should take a clue from her and that vicious NeverTrumper Megyn Kelly and spell his name Tuckyr Carlsyn
Don't forget he has a "news" website called Global (LOL) Daily Caller and he has a rule he will not run any stories critical of Fox News. Did I already say he is weak?
Yes to C-SPAN definitely - the objective is to gain wide exposure so viewers can find it very easily - I think I would offer the program to all the for-profit networks - I would insist on limited commercial interruption - with a piece of the revenue going to vetted veterans’ charities - NO moderator - except someone there solely to help Mr. Trump with fielding the questions - it should be pure Trump because that’s what I think people want - networks can take it or leave it
An excellent debate would be so easy. Really.
Trump gets questions from one of her slimeballs, and Clinton gets questions from Kellyanne. It could get uncomfortable, but it would be fair. No “journalists”, i.e., Dem operatives.
Trump is wise to not attack the moderator. You know what the media would do with that if he said anything negative. Let Rudy etc do the dirty work.
They should turn the moderator into a time keeper and nothing else. Let the candidates ask each other questions.
Excellent! He could say, "To paraphrase you, Hillary, what difference does it make at this point?", if she brings up something he said 20 years ago. What matters is how he thinks NOW, not how he thought in his youth. I'm sure Hillary would not like to have someone bring up her past laughing about a rapist she defended and her vilifying the teen girl he raped, or her maligning all the women her husband molested, or his serial adultery, or her getting kicked off the Watergate case because she was a liar, etc. She is much too flippant with saying we need to move on and that was a long time ago, but yet she will try to demonize Trump for his past. What a hypocrite!
I hope Trump gets to address her voting for the Iraq war when she was a senator rather than him getting hammered for what he might have thought as a regular civilian. That's a HUGE difference. When she suggested he must be trying to hide something by not releasing his tax records, he should have countered by asking what she is hiding by deleting 30,000+ emails and not just deleting them, but obliterating them with a program that makes it impossible to forensically retrieve them.
For these reasons, he definitely should participate in the next debates. People can see when a moderator is biased and that actually goes against the person the moderator shows favoritism to, not the other guy.
Did anyone notice that Hilliary kept addressing him as "Donald", not Mr. Trump, and he addressed her almost exclusively as "Secretary Clinton? I thought she was intentionally rude and obnoxious to do that.
I don't doubt it all! They cheat.
Yep. He is smart and one would think he would figure it out. In particular never squander previous capital defending jaywalking when your opponent is guilty of murder and treason. Here you have Trump defending himself about what he thought about Iraq as a private citizen when Hillary actually VOTED for it.
I agree! I really like OAN. They lean right and are objective like how Fox started out being.
Partially true. Levin hates some of Trump’s stances, embraces others that are important, but holds no real animus for Trump personally. The two could sit at dinner and engage in a civil discourse about policy without a row. Levin’s man enough to hear Trump out even where he disagrees. Trump is confident enough to actually listen when someone with Levin’s credibility promotes a view alternative from his own. We’ve no less testimony than the visible alteration in Trump’s campaign strategy — the throttling of his former bombastic self — as witness to Trump’s ability to accept and follow the wisdom of sound advisers.
As for moderating a debate, Levin has the smarts to play the role in even-handed fashion. IF — and I think it’s a BIG if — he chose to “fact check” anyone in the course of the debate, at least we’d have reason to believe that he was speaking with a decent grasp of the actual facts. I’d trust him to do a great job were he to accept the post.
“Fischel writes that there is no evidence that Milken committed any crimes or “engaged in any conduct that had ever before been considered criminal.”
That’s bunk and I’m surprised to see Paul Craig Roberts pushing it. The evidence that convicted Milken came from Milken’s own accountant. IIRC Milken had the accountant running two sets of books in order to keep the fraud hidden from sight. When the investigators cornered the accountant he produced the books and that was it for Milken.
Ben Stein wrote articles for Barron’s detailing what Milken was doing and how he got caught. It was calculated criminal behavior, it wasn’t Martha Stewart getting a stock tip.
I followed it in the WSJ in school. The government went after Milken’s family and associates so Michael plead out to stop the harassment is how it looked to me. The market crashed because banks could not hold the notes as assets due to newly enacted bank regulation and were forced dump them high yield debts into the market weather they were performing or not. The feds had to get him for something to close the deal.
If Milken hadn’t been committing fraud he wouldn’t have had his bookkeeper keeping two sets of books. He was, and that’s how the whole thing unraveled for Milken.
Keeping two sets of books was done to conceal fraud. Milken’s bookkeeper was the first to find himself in danger of going to prison and he flipped on his boss when Giuliani’s investigators confronted him with their evidence.
Milken was managing assets for his family. They may or may not have known of the fraud that he was engaged in that they were benefiting from. He was certainly guilty so it was no great concession on his part to admit his role. He sells the idea that he pled guilty in order to save his brother because he wants people to believe that he is a victim and not the white collar crook that he actually is.
It’s instructive that when Milken gained control of companies he made a practice of taking stodgy old AAA bonds out of their pension funds and exchanging them for Drexel junk in his own and his family’s accounts. That wasn’t illegal, but it does show his real opinion of the value of the Drexel junk paper that he was churning out. He didn’t want it when he could exchange it for low yield AAA paper. Very different than what he said publicly. Not a crime, but another example of Milken’s duplicity and desire to fool the public.
All I have heard from Levin are compliments joined with backhanded slaps in the face. I would not want him in any case and used to be a huge fan. Now he is just another ideological loser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.