Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Piers Morgan: Mueller's team is 'panicking,' 'fishing'" video.
-
2
-
The fact is that Republicans DID go after Bill Clinton for fooling around. And while Bill probably SHOULD have been prosecuted for sexual assault and his wife for character assassination of his victims, it wasn't an appropriate use of a special counsel appointed to investigate WhiteWater.
I like the idea of an independent counsel, who doesn't work for the guys he's investigating, but clearly they go on fishing expeditions.
New Rule: When you don't find grounds to go after a guy for the main thing (WhiteWatergate, Russiacollusiongate) you're investigating, you should close up shop.
It is well known in legal circles that if you target the man, you can always turn up a crime, since all it takes is one person's testimony contradicting your own to put you up on lying-to-investigators charges, as several experts have asserted with regard to the Mike Flynn case, and with regard to whether or not Trump should agree to a sit-down with Mueller (He shouldn't.).
That's basically all that got Clinton on: lying to prosecutors. And it wasn't even criminal, but it WAS impeachable, because there's a lower burden of proof for impeachment. I think Bill Clinton's a turd for treating women the way he does, starting with his wife. But if there's one thing a guy gets a pass for is not discussing matters of the penis and fidelity in public. Gentlemen never tell.
Getting him for lying about a consensual relationship is like getting Capone for tax evasion. But there's a very big difference. There are no laws against cheating on your wife. He probably SHOULD have been prosecuted for sexual assault, and covering-up for it or those who covered up for it should've been hauled in and charged.
But that doesn't mean getting him on the blue dress was a mis-use of prosecutorial powers, in my humble opinion. If they couldn't get him on WhiteWater, the prosecutor should've shut the whole thing down. He's been granted special powers for a very specific and narrow purpose.
1
-
And back in the late '50s and early '60s, John F. Kennedy was a TOTAL dog. Remember this when people talk about Establishment Press. It's actually been going on since power-hungry individuals cooked up the whole Fairness Doctrine, and invented the myth of objectivity in reporting, which never has existed, EVER, in the history of spoken language.
But ALL D.C. reporters KNEW about Marilyn Monroe (and others). But major news has ALWAYS been hand-in-glove with government. We've NEVER gotten the full story. Just because it's become blatantly OBVIOUS with the proliferation of media and citizen reporters doesn't mean it hasn't been this way since NBC, CBS and ABC first opened a freakin' RADIO station...
There IS a journalistic ethos of reporting facts, honestly, however they cut. But nobody's perfect, and the market really needs to understand the axe-grinding has never ever ceased, so you listen to multiple sources and trust the ones who are more often correct, by your personal lights, as best you may.
But as consumers of news, we're idiots to uncritically accept ANY news source to be providing the truth, but more importantly, the truths that we most need to know in order to understand our world. It's what editors choose NOT to tell us that is most critical.
1
-
1