Posted on 02/20/2020 2:03:34 PM PST by TakebackGOP
The Hillary email leaks from Wikileaks were mostly about her private speeches to companies like Goldman Sachs. There were a few emails with comments from John Podesta or Huma Abedin, but nothing too bad. With the Access Hollwood tape, Trump did not know the recording was going to be released. The sources only say, "11-year-old recording of a presidential candidate who was apparently aware at the time that he was being recorded by a TV program," but the sources don't show proof that he knew he was being recorded. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nbc-delayed-publication-of-lewd-trump-tape-because-of-lawsuit-fears/2016/10/08/a3c6850e-8db9-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html Why is leaking Hillary's speeches election interference, but Access Hollywood, NBC, and the Washington Post leaking audio of Trump on a bus not election interference? Hillary didn't lose any endorsements over Wikileaks. These were her paid speeches to Wall Street companies.
You know why......................
‘
Why weren’t the Podesta’s charged?
They made gazillions - and weren’t registered as Foreign agents.
It was good enough to get Manafort Charged.
.
If they knew who leaked it, they could send him a seriously-worded letter of rebuke.
I’ll take “Because they weren’t against dumb-as-craps for $1,000, please Alex”
Well it is, but it’s okay because a foreign entity wasn’t asked. So in the liberal mind that is okay. Now the times printing the opinion piece offered up by the Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. qualifies, but of course, that too is okay in the liberal mind. Foreign intervention against orange man good, but orange man asking for foreign intervention, which of course it wasn’t, is treasonous. That last line is meant as sarcasm, if I must spell it out. 8>)
Why was Bush's 24-year-old DUI held until the last week of the campaign?
Was the timing of that news drop "election interference?"
-PJ
The Access Hollywood tape was private comments.
Why isn’t senators who are presidential candidates voting to remove the president not “benefitting” from their actions?
It’s still interference if it was done in the United States.
They impeached President Trump because he supposedly requested assistance for a foreign government to interfere in the election process. So there is your difference. The request by a foreign entity to interfere. Of course the interference by the DNC , via a law firm hired and paid for by the DNC and the opposition candidate, to dig up dirt on Trump by a foreign entity doesn't count, in the liberal mind. In that instance it warrants a Special Prosecutor to see if he committed any crimes by colluding Russian interference and cost the taxpayers several 10s of millions to prove what was already known, that it was not true.
So yes it in interference, but in the liberal mind that kind of interference is quite okay.
In other words it's a double standard, and they get away with it because the press is in their back pocket.
Yeah, this unhinged concern the Democrats have regarding “foreign interference” sounds like blatant xenophobia.
Interesting compare/contrast.
The Access Hollywood tape was private comments during a shoot to be broadcast on the public airwaves on a station licensed by the government.
George W Bush was a private citizen driving on a public road using a license issued by the government.
At what point do we call it an abuse of the government license to accurately report the news?
On the one hand, Bush was the son of a prominent government official, and likely called in favors to prevent the contemporaneous reporting the DUI. It was only when he ran for President that the oppo research team found it (or, they found it when he ran for governor of Texas and decided it was too valuable to use then).
On the other hand, Trump was not a government official or related to one, so the comments were likely edited out due to broadcast standards of the day and the fact that they didn't add to the story. However, the government licensed media still held onto the tapes rather than discard them, and used the licensed airwaves to broadcast them once Trump became a candidate government official.
On both hands, an argument can be made that those with the government license to broadcast used their stations to withhold, and then later broadcast, damaging news when it was convenient for THEM, not for the subject.
-PJ
“On the other hand, Trump was not a government official or related to one, so the comments were likely edited out due to broadcast standards of the day and the fact that they didn’t add to the story.”
Just want to add that his comments were only audio.
On the one hand, Bush was the son of a prominent government official, and likely called in favors to prevent the contemporaneous reporting the DUI. It was only when he ran for President that the oppo research team found it (or, they found it when he ran for governor of Texas and decided it was too valuable to use then).
In 1976, George Bush, Sr. was the Director of the CIA, not a position that would expose his adult kids, Jr. was 30 at the time, to scrutiny at the time. I think most people barely know who the current director is, let alone if he has kids.
I just reviewed a 2000 article on the subject that details the source of the info.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20001103/aponline112738_000.htm
A little more high profile than many.
-PJ
I’ll give you a hint. Our reps don’t run this country and those who do, don’t follow the Constitution. Our legal system and media systems are used and abused by the globalists keeping their own a$$e$ in gold and power.
Can you tell me who the current Director of the CIA is? Is he/she married, have kids?
I had to look it up since I did not remember.
Even Ted Cruz supporters were gloating after the Access Hollywood leak, it wasn’t just NeverTrumpers.
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.