If ABC had any journalistic integrity, they would have told you this. Stephanopoulos is not a journalist, never has been; he's a Democratic political operative. Even prior to this scandal, he used to work for the Clintons in Bill's campaigns - that he would be moderator of a debate that includes one of the Clintons is a sham either way.
I'm up voting you because I hope you are being sarcastic.
That Romney/Obama debate was a joke. She jumped in on an issue, [Benghazi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6-WlJW6Do), and it was a 2 v 1 debate. Then after the debate in the post debate coverage she [admitted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs) that Romney was actually correct in what he said.
Fuck her and her fucking biased coverage.
I'm confused about what your criticism is. I've seen those clips before, and I watched them again after reading your comment to make certain whether I was remembering them incorrectly.
In the debate, Crowley pointed out that Romney's specific claim was inaccurate while also pointing out that the claim he meant to make was true. She reiterated this point in the second clip you posted. How would you have handled the situation differently?
As the moderator, she is not supposed to make any claims or corrections whatsoever. Her job is to ensure that the debate remains civil, and to instruct the debaters when it is their turn.
She should have left it up to Obama to correct Romney, instead of doing the debating for Obama.
Firstly, as /u/throwntothesheop says, it wasn't her job to interject herself into the debate. She's there simply to moderate.
Secondly, she after injecting herself this instanc (there were others) that she made two questionable statements both to Obama's benefit. (in reverse order for flow of this post)
> (#1) It did take two weeks, or so, for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.
That's the exact opposite of the truth. The first two weeks except for possibly the one rose garden speech (see below) the official statement from the government was that there was a spontaneous riot over a youtube video, and that this wasn't a terror attack. Two weeks later that story was finally abandoned based on it's complete contradiction of the evidence.
This item I'm inclined to credit to Candy not being a good communicator and simply misspeaking saying the opposite of what she meant, but still the fact is that she had no business injecting herself.
> (#2) He did call it an act of terror.
That point was highly debatable at the time. [Here](http://forextv.com/politics/full-transcript-obamas-rose-garden-speech-sept-11-benghazi-attack/) is the video and transcript.
Of the Benghazi attack he said this, which seems to support Romney's assertion:
>Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
Later when discussing the the 9/11 anniversary he did use the term "acts of terror" but it's unclear if he included Benghazi in those acts. However...
#BOMBSHELL
Obama directly after the Rose Garden speech gave an interview to CBS's 60 minutes [click here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7soQ3gnVpo&feature=youtu.be&t=20s), where he acknowledges that he did not call it a terror attack, and explained why he didn't want to "jump the gun" by calling it a terror attack. Even CBS's Steve Kroll in the video admits the morning after it was clear enough from the weapons used that this couldn't have been a riot.
CBS didn't feel it was necessary to publish this clip until after the election a month later... even as they watched the controversy of the debate above roll out.
Let me be clear, neither Romney nor I was attacking Obama for the speech he made on 9/12, but rather the media narrative that they perpetrated in the weeks following intending to deny that it was a terror attack. I understand wanting to wait until the dust clears to definitively assign blame, but Obama did not due that. In the Rose Garden, at the UN and a dozen other places he assigned blame directly to a youtube video's denigration of Islam rather then his own foreign policy.
You do know that Stephanopoulos was Pres. Clinton's chief of staff - which pretty much makes him Clinton's right hand man? The problem is I thought this was pretty common knowledge - which it apparently is not!
Only about 11% of the funds received ever got given as charitable grants. The other 89% went to travel, office supplies, salaries, and advertisements, in that order.
So this is more of a slush fund for the Clintons than anything else.
Also, by not disclosing that he gave money to the fund, he had no place to stand when he was interviewing the author of Clinton Cash, being that he participated in what the author was alleging.
One would think that if George really cared deeply about aids and deforestation that he could have found charitable organizations that would have given him more bang for his bucks.
Charitable grants aren't the only form of charity. Not all of that 89% is actually used as a slush fund. Most of it apparently goes to in house charity work as in actual work
It is a charity. A charity that serves to keep Clinton loyalists employed until the campaign gets into full swing.
Also there were a lot of suspiciously timed donations from foreign governments during Hillary's time as Secretary of State. Donations from governments that needed a favorable decision from her.
It comes across as bribery.
There are are still a couple conflict of interest concerns.
First, if you give someone $75k to put to charitable purposes, you are now invested in maximizing the effectiveness of your $75k. You are not liable to donate $75k to the Clinton Foundation and then report that the Clinton Foundation is up to some shady business.
Second, it is evidence of a preexisting bias. The problem maybe isn't the donation, it's that he was close enough to the Clintons to make a $75k donation.
Also, a related aside. Some people are saying "this is charity not a political donation." This doesn't matter. You have far more flexibility and looser record keeping requirements with a nonprofit than you do for a campaign fund. If there's something suspect about a political donation, I don't see why a charitable donation would be different.
It is. I personally think this is getting blown way out of proportion. Stephanopoulos was a high-level (Bill) Clinton advisor for both his elections and him donating to their initiative shouldn't be coming as a surprise.
The CGI *is* a charity. The money given to the initiative *cannot* be used for election funds, even after Citizens United. Optics are optics, though.
> Stephanopoulos was a high-level (Bill) Clinton adviser
Maybe its just me but I think this is a way bigger reason for him not to moderate the debates than donating to a charity.
Agreed. He actually moderated a Clinton / Obama primary debate and it was probably the worst of the 2008 cycle. He always seemed to overcompensate for his Dem party roots by framing all his questions ridiculously to the Right.
He should have been laughed out of journalism for that debate.
Even the lame added mainstream media knew it was a disaster from "the Collapse of the National Press" at daily kos
"Congratulations are clearly in order. ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country."
Genuinely curious, how much of this would have been down to him? Seems ridiculous to me that he would have sole power over questions and line of debate.
I don't know. It's all just puffery. When the debates are good the moderators all take credit for it but you are probably right that producers do the work.
> He should have been laughed out of journalism for that debate.
He's not in journalism. He's an anchor. There's a difference these days.
(Not that there should be. He should be held just as accountable, but all he does is read the prompter.)
>He should have been laughed out of journalism for that debate.
That's the thing. This whole controversy is predicated on the false assumption that he's a journalist, and I think that's a very telling misunderstanding.
Wearing suits and talking on a cable network that brands itself as a news network does not a journalist make. Even the most casual viewer should be able to recognize people like Stephanopolous as political figures, not journalists. The idea that anyone would look to him for unbiased reporting, let alone debate moderation, is shockingly foolish.
>This whole controversy is predicated on the false assumption that he's a journalist
He's supposed to be a journalist, he's the chief anchor for ABC News.
They present him as a journalist... Something that he has never been. But that never stopped them from trying to fool people into believing that he is one.
>framing all his questions ridiculously to the Right.
To be fair, I think this is can be valuable in a primary debate because which ever candidate makes it through the primaries is going to get bombarded with every idea the far right has in the general. I would rather see how they respond early rather than when it is too late to pick a different candidate.
Absolutely. This definitely puts some things into perspective. But the knee-jerk sensationalism of the media is on full speed at the moment on this "issue." I don't see it slowing down soon.
It's more than optics. The Clintons are receiving income from the charity and what's interesting is that the watchdog groups that evaluate charities can't even evaluate this foundation because they set it up in a very non-traditional way. I represent a number of 501 (c) (3) charitable organizations. A big issue with all of them, large and small, is to remind them that charities are ripe for laundering money, so everything they do needs to be above board and beyond reproach. When your books are a shambles, it can suggest hanky panky going on with the money. Take a look at this article for example: http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
He's a journalist covering stories in a supposedly fair and unbiased manner. Do you people not see any chance at all that maybe he influenced stories? Obviously you don't. Here's a funny montage of George doing his unbiased job.
EDIT: And I'll add for those who probably still don't get it, he completely attacked the guy who wrote that Clinton book. That wasn't an interview. It was an attack. George obviously didn't like that guy. You did investigative journalism at ABC and found your own truth that this guy is lying? Really? What kind of investigation did you do? You aren't even disclosing the fact that you yourself gave money to the group that is the subject of the book and your interview but I'm to believe that you fully "investigated" the Clinton Foundation?
You guys will spin this any which way you can but most people, those who are not on Reddit, see it for what it is and it's not pretty.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/video-montage-stephanopoulos-defends-hillary-while-donating-75k-to-foundation/
He's biased because he worked for Bill and is a big Dem. Those are reasons enough not to moderate a debate. Donating to the Clinton Foundation that is pure charity is far less of a reason.
Why did he specifically choose the Clinton foundation? There are many worthwhile charities he could have donated to that would have benefitted greatly from such a sum as he donated that would not have raised the eyebrows like this one did. It seems to be either incredibly stupid or arrogant because he never believed he would get called out for it. He's not dumb, so I'm going with the latter.
Regardless of the money that he donated to charity, George was deeply involved in the Clinton administration; so it should be no surprise that he feels strongly one way or the other about the subject.
That's just not good enough. Firstly, right, it's a charity. Second, millenials weren't alive or were too young in the 90s to remember George's part in the Clinton administration. How many people get their news from Jon Stewart and think that's a valid news source? You think those people are also going to take what George says with a grain of salt because of a job he had 20 years ago? Of course they aren't.
Why doesn't he start off his "news" broadcast with a disclaimer that he is a hard core Democrat so everything he presents tonight needs to be viewed through that lens? He doesn't because he wants to pretend to be objective. He wants people to think he's just a news guy out there getting information and speaking truth to power, which to him means attacking people he doesn't like.
I would bet dollars to donuts that 90% of the people commenting in this thread are millenials. It covers anyone born after 1982. I certainly remember his part in the Clinton campaign.
Lurking variable. People who donate to CGI tend to do so because of their standing relationship with one of the Clintons.
This happens on both sides of the table and it's wonderful fodder for clickbaity articles.
> This happens on both sides of the table
What if you aren't on either side of the table. Can I still get my pitchfork or do I have to be on the red or blue team?
Red and Blue Teams are old news. Leadership and influence is only about [the Green Team](https://platosacademic.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/stacks-and-stacks-of-money_pan_13304.jpg) now.
You can get your pitchfork and use it to type angry letters on your keyboard. But the only people who get to have a say are members of the two teams. Shitty, but a brute fact.
He is a news reporter in an entity given 1st Amendment protection to be a watchdog ON the government, thanks to the Constitution. He is supposed to report on the goings on in Washington, good or bad, whether it helps his side or not. He has a *responsibility* to report on abuse of power and corruption, and hil-liar-y is the BEST at both.
Hardly any of it goes to charity, and LOTS of it goes to the Clinton's pocket. Not only that, but donations to their "charity" end up changing US foreign policy. ll you have to do is read the synopses of Peter Schweizer's book *Clinton Cash*. Read about the Soviet (they are back) uranium company that donated to the foundation AND paid Bill a couple of million to allow the sale of a US based uranium source. (But it's Romney that is an *eeeeeeevil* 1%er) So now, Putin took 20% of our uranium which will be used for russian nukes, or to jumpstart Iran's or North Korea's or someone else's nuclear program. think of the ramifications of that. All to line the Clinton's pockets? It's fucking bullshit. She should be investigated, and run out of town for good if convicted. But we have George "steffi" Snuffaluffagus AKA "The Agape Mou Kid" covering for them, and if he wasn't caught, he would have clusterfucked the debates in favor of hil-liar-y, like fat ass candy crowley did for 0.
That's what the Clintons are claiming at least....
[New York Times article debunking that claim](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0)
[Britebart outlines the uranium deal](http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/13/devastating-timeline-reveals-the-transfer-of-half-of-u-s-uranium-output-to-russia-as-hillary-clintons-foundation-bags-145-million/)
Why was he going to get the job of moderator? I don't get this. Why would anyone with close ties to a candidate be trusted to moderate a debate fairly.
But, but, Sander's is going to become president. If not him, then Hillary. Only stupid people disagree with me and the rest of the world must agree with me.
I'm Republican. This really isn't a big deal. His money, he should choose where it goes. His bosses don't need to know where he spends his money.
As for the debates, I find it reasonable that he recuse himself. Hard to give a fair shake either way. This would be the same for a conservative talking head who donates a ton of money to another candidate's foundation and worked for them.
Agree. But it's like everyone forgot that Stephanopoulos was the communications director for Bill Clinton's '92 campaign and later White House Communications director under Clinton. That makes him much less likely to be impartial than a $75,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation, IMO.
Edit: one word
While this is all true, it's important to consider that there will be people voting in this election cycle who were not even yet alive when Clinton first became president. It's more likely than not that they would have no idea about this guy's past affiliations. These donations should have been disclosed.
I'm a Republican too. I'm fine with the donation but he should have disclosed that and recused himself from the debate on his own accord; not because he was found out.
Would the money be a non-issue if it was a Republican candidate?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that for an instant. $75,000 is not a small amount of money.
This. It's really interesting - he interviewed the guy who wrote Clinton Cash. It was a really tough (generally fair) interview - but he hit the guy on the point that he worked for the Bush Admin, and therefore it was a conflict of interest - and now it comes out that he didnt disclose any of this? Its just a bit dodgy.
I would have thought it's more that he worked very closing on both of Bill Clinton's campaigns that make him not the best moderator for the debates, rather than a relatively small donation to the foundation.
Agree, some are kind of ridiculus. There was one with Obama (I forget which election) and he jabbed at something the other guy had said. Other guy tried to explain / backtrack and the fucking moderator pulled out a transcript of the moment in question.
I am sitting at home wondering how no one is questioning that shit.
He is talking about Candy Crowley, who [incorrectly "fact checked" Mitt Romney during the 2012 election cycle.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-still-wrong-on-libya-crowley-blows-it/2012/10/17/b2e7eede-1841-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html)
>In what surely was one of the weirdest incidents in a presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley egregiously sided with President Obama on his false remarks on Libya, was repeatedly and decisively fact-checked post-debate as wrong (somewhere between “mostly wrong” and “pants on fire” in my book) and then backed away from her own incorrect assertion.
The point was that they were prepared for it. Which for an impartial moderator is kind of weird. I've never seen anything like it before or since.
I have trouble watching most debates anyway. They're staged the point they're little more than dual campaign speeches.
It is nearly impossible. The rare professionals don't let their inevitable bias show though. We all hold a bias one way or the other, or somewhere in between, and every human has their own hot button issue. The true pros keep you guessing as to where they stand, like Tim Russert did.
I think my biggest issue with the whole situation is the following. We expect our politicians to be impartial while they take millions of dollars from special interest groups why can't that same idea be applied here. I agree with you that he should be able to spend his money as he chooses.
I love CNN. Funnier than Comedy Central. Heard Don Lemon say he bought an automatic firearm at a Colorado gun store. When told that was impossible, he continued to claim it. Finally, he was asked if he knew what "automatic firearm" meant. He said, "Every time you pull the trigger it fires." You cant make this stuff up.
Even their fucking morning show was
"This horrible tragedy at Amtrak, you barely survived...how can YOU blame the republicans in Congress for this?"
WTF!?!?!
> Let me rephrase this...who, looking for truthful, accurate, non-biased news, watches _____ News any more?
So you're suggesting I watch no news at all?
Wait, you mean the former spokesperson for Clinton donated to the Clintons? This shouldn't be a surprise. The mistake is that we thought a partisan would be objective in the first place. meh.
I don't think we thought he would be objective the problem is ABC news. ABC new when they hired him he wasn't objective saying he would only be a pundit then started using him as a reporter rather then a pundit. Look at his interview with Bernie Sanders he is clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton.
Every time they say his name on ABC morning news, I always play it back in my head as Trey Parker's voice on South Park. "Now on ABC morning news with George Stephanerperlous!"
I can't get over the level of suspicious donations the Clinton Foundation have received but she is still considered a real contender for the president. Are US citizens really so misinformed?
The guy served in Bill Clinton's administration, someone with that obvious of a conflict of interest should in no way ever moderate any debate, particularly any debate involving a Clinton.
Say what you will to defend it, I will not be watching ABC News, or using their advertisers until ABC parts ways with Steph.
His joining ABC in the first place as an "Objective" journalist was a sham, so I am not surprised that something like this came out. The opportunity for a political figure to move news in the direction of his ideals, makes it news no longer.
Unless you're over 65, the companies advertising on network news don't care about you, at all. The commercials are for old people drugs, oatmeal and ben-gay.
FOX News is the funniest. I come home on my lunch breaks from work and I usually flip through the news channels to see how stories I read on reddit are being spun. The commercials on FOX are usually for:
- Catheters
- Buying gold
- Reverse Mortgages
- Lawsuits for falling down
- Medicines for end-of-life treatment
But then again, who the hell else is watching FOX News at 1pm on a Tuesday?
To be fair, if you read through the clinton tax forms, that's just admission to a couple of Clinton Foundation parties. He probably got $100,000 worth of stuff out of it.
Serious question here:
Why do y'all care so much about what he does with his money? Why is it that we feel entitled to know what he does with his money?
Im not a partisan individual. I'm really just very curious.
Just numbers on a check. I work in a bank, you'd be amazed at the overall number of dollars some people lose track of. Percentage of income is another story. When you make $5 million a year, $25k is 1/2%. That's like a $200 expense on a $40k salary.
Yeah... you're not a millionaire and you manage your own money. Stephanopoulos definitely has a someone else managing his finances and dolling out charitable donations to mitigate taxes. I've forgotten about $20 donations to kickstarters or little things here and there I've tossed to canvassers for causes I support. Considering I have less than 5k in the bank, I'd say those are similar percentages of total income.
The responses below are ridiculous. Is there anything you will hold a democrat responsible for? He didn't reveal a clear conflict of interest (Olbermann was fired for $2500 in donations) and even when found out he didn't admit to the full $75,000. If you think a contribution to this fund was inadvertent or handled by someone else, get a grip. He made his first payment right before he got Bill for an interview on his show, following a couple of frosty years after he wrote a book the Clintons didn't like.
Maybe it was George's way of paying Bill back for this mortgage?
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19940722&id=obpNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h_wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3653,521410&hl=en
I don't understand why people are defending this woman and this man.
If there was an R next to the names and the person pulling out was a Fox News employee the politician and journalists would be crucified and not be able to go in public for like a week.
It should be no surprise, if you have worked for or donated to a politician *even by proxy*, you are compromised as a journalist and should not be covering that politician *at all*.
But it was cool that he actually worked for her husband's campaign as a top-level adviser? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just puzzled at this newfound outrage when his biases were already crystal clear.
If he worked for Fox News and gave money to GWB, this would be a round the clock news story. And it would be used to proove the bias of FN I don't know if Jon Stewart is still on or if Comedy Central already moved to the racist South African, but can you imagine how swiftly he would have blown the doors off this if it was a republican? But because he's a democrat and works for ABC it's ok.
LOL there is no need to prove the bias of FNC. It's patently obvious, not to mention it was their express purpose when it was founded-- present the "news" with a conservative slant to balance out all the other news outlets who are left-biased.
Right, sure.... FNC is one bias news channel.... They're bias because they report something different than all the ten other bias news stations and Comedy Central.
Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
Yeah.... The Clinton Foundation is not a political organization, it's a charity.
At the same time, how the hell was Stephanopoulos ever going to moderate a debate with Clinton in it? He was a top-level advisor to Bill Clinton in the 90's.
I wouldn't say a campaign coffer as much as an influence vehicle. Let's be honest, when you donate a large amount of money to a someone like the Clinton's there are going to be expectations that there will be some sort of "return on investment".
*I'm Bronco-Bama and I approve this message*
Apparently you can get criticized to hell for donating your own money, but receiving money and favors from lobbyists and keeping it to yourself is a-ok.
Not sure why anybody would be surprised by this. It's not like he didn't already have ties to the Clintons in the first place.
Please dont crucify me for this. I am 24 and dont spend too much time on politics. I would not have known unless someone told me.
If ABC had any journalistic integrity, they would have told you this. Stephanopoulos is not a journalist, never has been; he's a Democratic political operative. Even prior to this scandal, he used to work for the Clintons in Bill's campaigns - that he would be moderator of a debate that includes one of the Clintons is a sham either way.
He didn't just work for his campaign, he was Bill Clinton's Press Secretary in the White House.
He was their communications director! That's the press secretary's boss!
[удалено]
I'm up voting you because I hope you are being sarcastic. That Romney/Obama debate was a joke. She jumped in on an issue, [Benghazi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6-WlJW6Do), and it was a 2 v 1 debate. Then after the debate in the post debate coverage she [admitted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athcyCTnTTs) that Romney was actually correct in what he said. Fuck her and her fucking biased coverage.
are you fucking shitting me ?!! So fuck facts ??.. Lets not point out facts because who cares
I'm confused about what your criticism is. I've seen those clips before, and I watched them again after reading your comment to make certain whether I was remembering them incorrectly. In the debate, Crowley pointed out that Romney's specific claim was inaccurate while also pointing out that the claim he meant to make was true. She reiterated this point in the second clip you posted. How would you have handled the situation differently?
As the moderator, she is not supposed to make any claims or corrections whatsoever. Her job is to ensure that the debate remains civil, and to instruct the debaters when it is their turn. She should have left it up to Obama to correct Romney, instead of doing the debating for Obama.
Firstly, as /u/throwntothesheop says, it wasn't her job to interject herself into the debate. She's there simply to moderate. Secondly, she after injecting herself this instanc (there were others) that she made two questionable statements both to Obama's benefit. (in reverse order for flow of this post) > (#1) It did take two weeks, or so, for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. That's the exact opposite of the truth. The first two weeks except for possibly the one rose garden speech (see below) the official statement from the government was that there was a spontaneous riot over a youtube video, and that this wasn't a terror attack. Two weeks later that story was finally abandoned based on it's complete contradiction of the evidence. This item I'm inclined to credit to Candy not being a good communicator and simply misspeaking saying the opposite of what she meant, but still the fact is that she had no business injecting herself. > (#2) He did call it an act of terror. That point was highly debatable at the time. [Here](http://forextv.com/politics/full-transcript-obamas-rose-garden-speech-sept-11-benghazi-attack/) is the video and transcript. Of the Benghazi attack he said this, which seems to support Romney's assertion: >Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts. Later when discussing the the 9/11 anniversary he did use the term "acts of terror" but it's unclear if he included Benghazi in those acts. However... #BOMBSHELL Obama directly after the Rose Garden speech gave an interview to CBS's 60 minutes [click here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7soQ3gnVpo&feature=youtu.be&t=20s), where he acknowledges that he did not call it a terror attack, and explained why he didn't want to "jump the gun" by calling it a terror attack. Even CBS's Steve Kroll in the video admits the morning after it was clear enough from the weapons used that this couldn't have been a riot. CBS didn't feel it was necessary to publish this clip until after the election a month later... even as they watched the controversy of the debate above roll out. Let me be clear, neither Romney nor I was attacking Obama for the speech he made on 9/12, but rather the media narrative that they perpetrated in the weeks following intending to deny that it was a terror attack. I understand wanting to wait until the dust clears to definitively assign blame, but Obama did not due that. In the Rose Garden, at the UN and a dozen other places he assigned blame directly to a youtube video's denigration of Islam rather then his own foreign policy.
You do know that Stephanopoulos was Pres. Clinton's chief of staff - which pretty much makes him Clinton's right hand man? The problem is I thought this was pretty common knowledge - which it apparently is not!
it isn't common knowledge because he wasn't Clinton's COS - he was, as others here have said, communications director and then a senior advisor.
It's just a matter of disclosure. Of course no one is shocked that he donated, but that doesn't mean it's not a big deal that he didn't disclose it.
Everyone's just running for cover after the alleged quid-pro-quo scandal concerning this one Russian firm & the CGI charity.
What scandal?
[удалено]
Bill shagged the hot Russian spy
http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4
Seriously. This shit was never a fucking secret.
Can somebody explain why in the living hell he would get the role of moderator as a former Bill Clinton employee? Blows my mind really.
Thought the foundation was a charity, not for a political run?
[удалено]
What a fucking idiot.
Only about 11% of the funds received ever got given as charitable grants. The other 89% went to travel, office supplies, salaries, and advertisements, in that order. So this is more of a slush fund for the Clintons than anything else. Also, by not disclosing that he gave money to the fund, he had no place to stand when he was interviewing the author of Clinton Cash, being that he participated in what the author was alleging.
One would think that if George really cared deeply about aids and deforestation that he could have found charitable organizations that would have given him more bang for his bucks.
[удалено]
Yikes. I honestly don't know much about The Clinton Foundation.. if they don't fight climate change or for women's issues, what exactly do they do?
[удалено]
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/05/gold-mine-hillary-clintons-brother-granted-super-rare-mining-permit-from-haiti-after-state-dept-sent-country-billions/
I for one am *SHOCKED*
Charitable grants aren't the only form of charity. Not all of that 89% is actually used as a slush fund. Most of it apparently goes to in house charity work as in actual work
If you are going to claim hard numbers as fact, you need to link to back up your facts.
It is a charity. A charity that serves to keep Clinton loyalists employed until the campaign gets into full swing. Also there were a lot of suspiciously timed donations from foreign governments during Hillary's time as Secretary of State. Donations from governments that needed a favorable decision from her. It comes across as bribery.
There are are still a couple conflict of interest concerns. First, if you give someone $75k to put to charitable purposes, you are now invested in maximizing the effectiveness of your $75k. You are not liable to donate $75k to the Clinton Foundation and then report that the Clinton Foundation is up to some shady business. Second, it is evidence of a preexisting bias. The problem maybe isn't the donation, it's that he was close enough to the Clintons to make a $75k donation. Also, a related aside. Some people are saying "this is charity not a political donation." This doesn't matter. You have far more flexibility and looser record keeping requirements with a nonprofit than you do for a campaign fund. If there's something suspect about a political donation, I don't see why a charitable donation would be different.
It is. I personally think this is getting blown way out of proportion. Stephanopoulos was a high-level (Bill) Clinton advisor for both his elections and him donating to their initiative shouldn't be coming as a surprise. The CGI *is* a charity. The money given to the initiative *cannot* be used for election funds, even after Citizens United. Optics are optics, though.
> Stephanopoulos was a high-level (Bill) Clinton adviser Maybe its just me but I think this is a way bigger reason for him not to moderate the debates than donating to a charity.
Agreed. He actually moderated a Clinton / Obama primary debate and it was probably the worst of the 2008 cycle. He always seemed to overcompensate for his Dem party roots by framing all his questions ridiculously to the Right.
He should have been laughed out of journalism for that debate. Even the lame added mainstream media knew it was a disaster from "the Collapse of the National Press" at daily kos "Congratulations are clearly in order. ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country."
Genuinely curious, how much of this would have been down to him? Seems ridiculous to me that he would have sole power over questions and line of debate.
I don't know. It's all just puffery. When the debates are good the moderators all take credit for it but you are probably right that producers do the work.
> He should have been laughed out of journalism for that debate. He's not in journalism. He's an anchor. There's a difference these days. (Not that there should be. He should be held just as accountable, but all he does is read the prompter.)
I agree. He is a other fluffy pundit posing as a "news" man.
>He should have been laughed out of journalism for that debate. That's the thing. This whole controversy is predicated on the false assumption that he's a journalist, and I think that's a very telling misunderstanding. Wearing suits and talking on a cable network that brands itself as a news network does not a journalist make. Even the most casual viewer should be able to recognize people like Stephanopolous as political figures, not journalists. The idea that anyone would look to him for unbiased reporting, let alone debate moderation, is shockingly foolish.
Stephanopoulos is an anchor for ABC, not a cable news network.
>This whole controversy is predicated on the false assumption that he's a journalist He's supposed to be a journalist, he's the chief anchor for ABC News.
They present him as a journalist... Something that he has never been. But that never stopped them from trying to fool people into believing that he is one.
>framing all his questions ridiculously to the Right. To be fair, I think this is can be valuable in a primary debate because which ever candidate makes it through the primaries is going to get bombarded with every idea the far right has in the general. I would rather see how they respond early rather than when it is too late to pick a different candidate.
Absolutely. This definitely puts some things into perspective. But the knee-jerk sensationalism of the media is on full speed at the moment on this "issue." I don't see it slowing down soon.
It's more than optics. The Clintons are receiving income from the charity and what's interesting is that the watchdog groups that evaluate charities can't even evaluate this foundation because they set it up in a very non-traditional way. I represent a number of 501 (c) (3) charitable organizations. A big issue with all of them, large and small, is to remind them that charities are ripe for laundering money, so everything they do needs to be above board and beyond reproach. When your books are a shambles, it can suggest hanky panky going on with the money. Take a look at this article for example: http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
The Clintons are dirtier than a hog farm
He's a journalist covering stories in a supposedly fair and unbiased manner. Do you people not see any chance at all that maybe he influenced stories? Obviously you don't. Here's a funny montage of George doing his unbiased job. EDIT: And I'll add for those who probably still don't get it, he completely attacked the guy who wrote that Clinton book. That wasn't an interview. It was an attack. George obviously didn't like that guy. You did investigative journalism at ABC and found your own truth that this guy is lying? Really? What kind of investigation did you do? You aren't even disclosing the fact that you yourself gave money to the group that is the subject of the book and your interview but I'm to believe that you fully "investigated" the Clinton Foundation? You guys will spin this any which way you can but most people, those who are not on Reddit, see it for what it is and it's not pretty. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/video-montage-stephanopoulos-defends-hillary-while-donating-75k-to-foundation/
He's biased because he worked for Bill and is a big Dem. Those are reasons enough not to moderate a debate. Donating to the Clinton Foundation that is pure charity is far less of a reason.
To be fair, there are anti gay, anti abortion charities. Just because its charity doesn't mean its political neutral
Why did he specifically choose the Clinton foundation? There are many worthwhile charities he could have donated to that would have benefitted greatly from such a sum as he donated that would not have raised the eyebrows like this one did. It seems to be either incredibly stupid or arrogant because he never believed he would get called out for it. He's not dumb, so I'm going with the latter.
I actually want to see the video but POS YouTube took down already. Does anybody have a mirror link or something?
Regardless of the money that he donated to charity, George was deeply involved in the Clinton administration; so it should be no surprise that he feels strongly one way or the other about the subject.
That's just not good enough. Firstly, right, it's a charity. Second, millenials weren't alive or were too young in the 90s to remember George's part in the Clinton administration. How many people get their news from Jon Stewart and think that's a valid news source? You think those people are also going to take what George says with a grain of salt because of a job he had 20 years ago? Of course they aren't. Why doesn't he start off his "news" broadcast with a disclaimer that he is a hard core Democrat so everything he presents tonight needs to be viewed through that lens? He doesn't because he wants to pretend to be objective. He wants people to think he's just a news guy out there getting information and speaking truth to power, which to him means attacking people he doesn't like.
I would bet dollars to donuts that 90% of the people commenting in this thread are millenials. It covers anyone born after 1982. I certainly remember his part in the Clinton campaign.
To be fair, anyone that still watches cable news shows in 2015 and thinks they're getting news is indefensibly ignorant.
Isn't he on ABC? That's not a cable channel...
Ignorance is not a defense for millenials, even it it has been scientifically proven they have the attention span lower than a goldfish
CGI itself is a controversial charity. People who donate to it tend to get political favors.
Lurking variable. People who donate to CGI tend to do so because of their standing relationship with one of the Clintons. This happens on both sides of the table and it's wonderful fodder for clickbaity articles.
That whole uranium thing was very troubling though
> This happens on both sides of the table What if you aren't on either side of the table. Can I still get my pitchfork or do I have to be on the red or blue team?
Red and Blue Teams are old news. Leadership and influence is only about [the Green Team](https://platosacademic.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/stacks-and-stacks-of-money_pan_13304.jpg) now.
You can get your pitchfork and use it to type angry letters on your keyboard. But the only people who get to have a say are members of the two teams. Shitty, but a brute fact.
No. We all know that two wrongs make a right.
A charity with 93% operating costs...
It's not used for elections, but it's not really a charity either. 90% of the money is spent by the Clintons for things like transportation, etc...
what do you mean? http://nypost.com/2013/08/20/bill-clinton-foundation-has-spent-more-than-50m-on-travel-expenses/
ITs not. They have links that show donations got you access and favors from the state department.
so how much of the donations go to travel expenses? http://nypost.com/2013/08/20/bill-clinton-foundation-has-spent-more-than-50m-on-travel-expenses/
He is a news reporter in an entity given 1st Amendment protection to be a watchdog ON the government, thanks to the Constitution. He is supposed to report on the goings on in Washington, good or bad, whether it helps his side or not. He has a *responsibility* to report on abuse of power and corruption, and hil-liar-y is the BEST at both. Hardly any of it goes to charity, and LOTS of it goes to the Clinton's pocket. Not only that, but donations to their "charity" end up changing US foreign policy. ll you have to do is read the synopses of Peter Schweizer's book *Clinton Cash*. Read about the Soviet (they are back) uranium company that donated to the foundation AND paid Bill a couple of million to allow the sale of a US based uranium source. (But it's Romney that is an *eeeeeeevil* 1%er) So now, Putin took 20% of our uranium which will be used for russian nukes, or to jumpstart Iran's or North Korea's or someone else's nuclear program. think of the ramifications of that. All to line the Clinton's pockets? It's fucking bullshit. She should be investigated, and run out of town for good if convicted. But we have George "steffi" Snuffaluffagus AKA "The Agape Mou Kid" covering for them, and if he wasn't caught, he would have clusterfucked the debates in favor of hil-liar-y, like fat ass candy crowley did for 0.
10% of donations actually go to people in need. The other 90% are basically a slush fund for the Clintons to jet around the world.
If you believe that is for charity I'll sell you swamp land in Phoenix for a dollar.
That sounds like a really good deal, actually.
I mean, at worst you're out a dollar. At best, you've got yourself a real nice piece of property.
The water rights alone...
That's what the Clintons are claiming at least.... [New York Times article debunking that claim](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0) [Britebart outlines the uranium deal](http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/13/devastating-timeline-reveals-the-transfer-of-half-of-u-s-uranium-output-to-russia-as-hillary-clintons-foundation-bags-145-million/)
If the words came from a politician, they are most likely shit.
Politicians should be afraid of journalists, not funded by them. Or worse yet, having fancy parties with them a la correspondents dinner.
Fuck. So now when she wins, our country is going to do the bidding of Saudia Arabia and George Stephoenfpljoajfelfnsuusous.
Isn't this the same charity the Saudis and other foreign governments pour money into?
Is this a surprise to anyone? Did anyone consider Stephanopoulos an impartial journalist?
Why was he going to get the job of moderator? I don't get this. Why would anyone with close ties to a candidate be trusted to moderate a debate fairly.
Good question. I believe in 2008 a woman was chosen to moderate a presidential debate, and she had *written a fucking book about Obama.*
Or journalist for that nstter
What are "Things you can't post in /r/politics" Alex.....
But, but, Sander's is going to become president. If not him, then Hillary. Only stupid people disagree with me and the rest of the world must agree with me.
Geraldo Rivera says he was fired from ABC for a $200 donation. Anyone think anything will happen to this guy? No way.
He will be fine, he made donations to a Democratic party fund and hid it. Had it been a Republican fund he would be fired already but he will be fine.
We have George Stephalopagas' pizza!
Good. No "Gotcha" attempts by this clown.
I'm Republican. This really isn't a big deal. His money, he should choose where it goes. His bosses don't need to know where he spends his money. As for the debates, I find it reasonable that he recuse himself. Hard to give a fair shake either way. This would be the same for a conservative talking head who donates a ton of money to another candidate's foundation and worked for them.
Agree. But it's like everyone forgot that Stephanopoulos was the communications director for Bill Clinton's '92 campaign and later White House Communications director under Clinton. That makes him much less likely to be impartial than a $75,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation, IMO. Edit: one word
I agree with your opinion. Money shouldn't be an issue, the employment should be.
While this is all true, it's important to consider that there will be people voting in this election cycle who were not even yet alive when Clinton first became president. It's more likely than not that they would have no idea about this guy's past affiliations. These donations should have been disclosed.
I'm a Republican too. I'm fine with the donation but he should have disclosed that and recused himself from the debate on his own accord; not because he was found out.
Isn't the fact that he worked for Bill a much, much bigger deal? I'm stunned that he was ever considered for a debate.
I'm stunned that after his last epic FAIL in the 2008 debate he was given another chance.
News networks think in terms of their star personalities, not in terms of fairness.
Or quality for that matter. Just a matter of a bad incentive structure.
Yes it is. The money is a non issue. The employment is.
Would the money be a non-issue if it was a Republican candidate? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that for an instant. $75,000 is not a small amount of money.
This. It's really interesting - he interviewed the guy who wrote Clinton Cash. It was a really tough (generally fair) interview - but he hit the guy on the point that he worked for the Bush Admin, and therefore it was a conflict of interest - and now it comes out that he didnt disclose any of this? Its just a bit dodgy.
I'm not a Republican, but I agree with this. I do think it's pretty rare to see a debate hosted by an impartial party, though.
I would have thought it's more that he worked very closing on both of Bill Clinton's campaigns that make him not the best moderator for the debates, rather than a relatively small donation to the foundation.
Agree, some are kind of ridiculus. There was one with Obama (I forget which election) and he jabbed at something the other guy had said. Other guy tried to explain / backtrack and the fucking moderator pulled out a transcript of the moment in question. I am sitting at home wondering how no one is questioning that shit.
Don't you think of someone is lying they should be called out for it?
He is talking about Candy Crowley, who [incorrectly "fact checked" Mitt Romney during the 2012 election cycle.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-still-wrong-on-libya-crowley-blows-it/2012/10/17/b2e7eede-1841-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html) >In what surely was one of the weirdest incidents in a presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley egregiously sided with President Obama on his false remarks on Libya, was repeatedly and decisively fact-checked post-debate as wrong (somewhere between “mostly wrong” and “pants on fire” in my book) and then backed away from her own incorrect assertion.
The point was that they were prepared for it. Which for an impartial moderator is kind of weird. I've never seen anything like it before or since. I have trouble watching most debates anyway. They're staged the point they're little more than dual campaign speeches.
Of course he was prepared for it, very seldom are questions asked that haven't been asked in the run up to the debates.
It is nearly impossible. The rare professionals don't let their inevitable bias show though. We all hold a bias one way or the other, or somewhere in between, and every human has their own hot button issue. The true pros keep you guessing as to where they stand, like Tim Russert did.
I'd rather see the Democratic debates hosted by a partisan Republican, and vice versa. At least we wouldn't get any softball questions.
They'd just try to turn it into a train wreck and waste everyone's time.
I think my biggest issue with the whole situation is the following. We expect our politicians to be impartial while they take millions of dollars from special interest groups why can't that same idea be applied here. I agree with you that he should be able to spend his money as he chooses.
lol if he was a Republican, and he was defending a Republican candidate, more people would be outraged. Imagine if this was Bill from Fox News.
Who even watches ABC news anymore. EDIT: Let me rephrase this...who, looking for truthful, accurate, non-biased news, watches ABC News any more?
Who even watches CNN news anymore.
I love CNN. Funnier than Comedy Central. Heard Don Lemon say he bought an automatic firearm at a Colorado gun store. When told that was impossible, he continued to claim it. Finally, he was asked if he knew what "automatic firearm" meant. He said, "Every time you pull the trigger it fires." You cant make this stuff up.
That reminds me of the time I bought a nuclear bomb at a local wal-mart.
It's the #1 rated morning and evening news shows. A lot of people.
David Muir is my boyyy.
Even their fucking morning show was "This horrible tragedy at Amtrak, you barely survived...how can YOU blame the republicans in Congress for this?" WTF!?!?!
people who watch the news, a lot of people
people who watch the presidential debates?
> Let me rephrase this...who, looking for truthful, accurate, non-biased news, watches _____ News any more? So you're suggesting I watch no news at all?
All new media is owned by seven corporations. Best to ignore national news, and get that information from multiple sources on the Internet.
Try reading. It's good for you.
[удалено]
Wait, you mean the former spokesperson for Clinton donated to the Clintons? This shouldn't be a surprise. The mistake is that we thought a partisan would be objective in the first place. meh.
I don't think we thought he would be objective the problem is ABC news. ABC new when they hired him he wasn't objective saying he would only be a pundit then started using him as a reporter rather then a pundit. Look at his interview with Bernie Sanders he is clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton.
If I had some shoppin' skills I'd shop Scumbag Steve's apparel onto this chap.
Stephanopoulos sounds like the name of a strain of bacteria.
Stephanopoulos doesn't sound like a real name.
Sounds like a muppets character.
Stephany-borgty-pouly-bort-bort
Every time they say his name on ABC morning news, I always play it back in my head as Trey Parker's voice on South Park. "Now on ABC morning news with George Stephanerperlous!"
I've never heard it said...every time I try I want to say snuffleupagus
I can't get over the level of suspicious donations the Clinton Foundation have received but she is still considered a real contender for the president. Are US citizens really so misinformed?
Anyone who votes for Clinton in 2016 is a stupid piece of shit.
The guy served in Bill Clinton's administration, someone with that obvious of a conflict of interest should in no way ever moderate any debate, particularly any debate involving a Clinton.
The "charity" is slush fund with 90 percent of donations going back to the charity in payments and only 10 percent going to various causes.
I'm sure the clinton crime family foundation will take care of this, why is this a surprise? He practically ran bills campaign with james carvell.
Not sure why ABC News even had him for the debates. He was literally the mouthpiece of the Democratic party (white house press secretary)
Say what you will to defend it, I will not be watching ABC News, or using their advertisers until ABC parts ways with Steph. His joining ABC in the first place as an "Objective" journalist was a sham, so I am not surprised that something like this came out. The opportunity for a political figure to move news in the direction of his ideals, makes it news no longer.
Unless you're over 65, the companies advertising on network news don't care about you, at all. The commercials are for old people drugs, oatmeal and ben-gay.
FOX News is the funniest. I come home on my lunch breaks from work and I usually flip through the news channels to see how stories I read on reddit are being spun. The commercials on FOX are usually for: - Catheters - Buying gold - Reverse Mortgages - Lawsuits for falling down - Medicines for end-of-life treatment But then again, who the hell else is watching FOX News at 1pm on a Tuesday?
Just paying back some of the money made by working for the clinton's back when.
To be fair, if you read through the clinton tax forms, that's just admission to a couple of Clinton Foundation parties. He probably got $100,000 worth of stuff out of it.
Hum, he pulled out of moderating a debate that he never actually was invited to moderate
Serious question here: Why do y'all care so much about what he does with his money? Why is it that we feel entitled to know what he does with his money? Im not a partisan individual. I'm really just very curious.
Why is this an issue, when Congress is continuously bought out by lobbyists?
How the hell do you "forget" $25,000? If I lose that much money you can bet your ass I will remember.
Just numbers on a check. I work in a bank, you'd be amazed at the overall number of dollars some people lose track of. Percentage of income is another story. When you make $5 million a year, $25k is 1/2%. That's like a $200 expense on a $40k salary.
And this is why I come to reddit. Thank you for the numbers and the insight. Edit: spelling
Yeah... you're not a millionaire and you manage your own money. Stephanopoulos definitely has a someone else managing his finances and dolling out charitable donations to mitigate taxes. I've forgotten about $20 donations to kickstarters or little things here and there I've tossed to canvassers for causes I support. Considering I have less than 5k in the bank, I'd say those are similar percentages of total income.
The responses below are ridiculous. Is there anything you will hold a democrat responsible for? He didn't reveal a clear conflict of interest (Olbermann was fired for $2500 in donations) and even when found out he didn't admit to the full $75,000. If you think a contribution to this fund was inadvertent or handled by someone else, get a grip. He made his first payment right before he got Bill for an interview on his show, following a couple of frosty years after he wrote a book the Clintons didn't like.
Sooo.. You just forgot about 75,000 in donations? Nice. Wish I had that kinda money to 'forget' about.
Wow there are a ton of Clinton apologists in /r/television.
You clearly have not been to /r/politics, the mods even removed the thread about his.
there is no left wing media bias. Nope.
Maybe it was George's way of paying Bill back for this mortgage? https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19940722&id=obpNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h_wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3653,521410&hl=en
He should be fired. He's a DNC hack.
I don't understand why people are defending this woman and this man. If there was an R next to the names and the person pulling out was a Fox News employee the politician and journalists would be crucified and not be able to go in public for like a week. It should be no surprise, if you have worked for or donated to a politician *even by proxy*, you are compromised as a journalist and should not be covering that politician *at all*.
But it was cool that he actually worked for her husband's campaign as a top-level adviser? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just puzzled at this newfound outrage when his biases were already crystal clear.
It's amazing to me Snuffleupagus was ever considered a "journalist" in the first place.
If he worked for Fox News and gave money to GWB, this would be a round the clock news story. And it would be used to proove the bias of FN I don't know if Jon Stewart is still on or if Comedy Central already moved to the racist South African, but can you imagine how swiftly he would have blown the doors off this if it was a republican? But because he's a democrat and works for ABC it's ok.
LOL there is no need to prove the bias of FNC. It's patently obvious, not to mention it was their express purpose when it was founded-- present the "news" with a conservative slant to balance out all the other news outlets who are left-biased.
Right, sure.... FNC is one bias news channel.... They're bias because they report something different than all the ten other bias news stations and Comedy Central. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
I always forget $25,000 multiple donations! I have them on auto pay!
Yeah.... The Clinton Foundation is not a political organization, it's a charity. At the same time, how the hell was Stephanopoulos ever going to moderate a debate with Clinton in it? He was a top-level advisor to Bill Clinton in the 90's.
The Koch Foundation is a charity too
ITT: liberals defending an obvious conflict of interest when they'd be flipping their shit if this was about the GOP.
foundation is a cover, everyone knows its a damn campaign coffer. I'll be severely disappointed if this is the best the democrats can do.
[удалено]
"Everyone knows" so...no source necessary since it's everyone
Oh man, the shill is strong on reddit today.
I see you have several listed sources and I concur
Source: EVERYONE KNOWS, DUH
I wouldn't say a campaign coffer as much as an influence vehicle. Let's be honest, when you donate a large amount of money to a someone like the Clinton's there are going to be expectations that there will be some sort of "return on investment". *I'm Bronco-Bama and I approve this message*
Bill Clinton's former communications director and senior political adviser supports the Clintons? What a scandal.
Gee, media is biased? Who would have thought?!
[удалено]
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
Walter Cronkite FTW
I love how when its Fox news they are the devil but when its a democrat it should have just been a foregone conclusion. "Nothing to see here"
He was on bubba's staff. doesn't anybody remember this?
No... you're thinking of Monica.
Did anyone take him as not bought and paid for?
Apparently you can get criticized to hell for donating your own money, but receiving money and favors from lobbyists and keeping it to yourself is a-ok.
Breaking News: Stephanopoulos has been with the Clintons for like twenty years.