General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuess who CBS has for "expert" commentary on impeachment hearing during breaks...
I was flipping channels and low and behold, there is the ole excuse-maker himself, Jonathan Turley.
No, I will not stay with CBS.
2naSalit
(86,749 posts)NPR over the week end. The only thing worth watching on CBS is Stephen Colbert.
Kid Berwyn
(14,945 posts)From a February 2019 op-Ed:
Is Mueller Uncovering Ukrainian Rather than Russian Collusion?
Excerpt...
The news that special counsel Robert Mueller may complete his work as early as next week has sent Washington into what Victorian women called vapors. For Republicans, the fear is that the report will build a case for criminal conduct that could be the basis for an indictment later but an impeachment now. For Democrats, the fear is that the report will fall short of delivering on proof of Russian collusion. The anticipation of the report was heightened by the shocking statement by former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe that President Donald Trump could be a Russian asset.
In this twilight moment, the mind races in anticipation. However, the most fascinating element may not be the role of Russia but the role of Ukraine. To be sure, Russia occupies part of Ukraine, wants sanctions lifted over its occupation of Crimea, and works through connections there. Russia was open about its desire to address those sanctions imposed by Congress, reaching out to Republicans and Democrats. There is nothing wrong in such an effort. Likewise, there was nothing wrong with former national security adviser Michael Flynn talking sanctions with Russian diplomats as part of the transition. The crime was his lying about those conversations.
Russia may have preferred Trump to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, it may have viewed his election as wickedly destabilizing for the United States and its allies. Yet, that could well be the extent of the purpose of the operation. But what is remarkable is how all investigative roads seem to lead to Kiev, not Moscow, in terms of key figures. It raises the question of whether Russian hacking efforts in the American election in 2016 were little more than what they seem as a clumsy leak and trolling operation.
So far we have seen no direct connection between the Russians and the Trump campaign as part of a conspiracy to hack the computer systems of the Democrats. We do have is a lot of connections to Ukrainians, along with a lot of money. When the FBI pulled back the curtain from the sordid dealings of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, they found Ukrainians aplenty. Manafort was connected to Ukrainian politician Serhiy Lyovochkin and oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, among others, and received at least $60 million for his work. While some of these individuals favored Russia, their main interest was to maintain power and profits in Ukraine. Manafort struggled to satisfy them even as his connections drew attention and, ultimately, resulted in his being dismissed from the Trump campaign.
Snip...
So far we have seen no direct connection between the Russians and the Trump campaign as part of a conspiracy to hack the computer systems of the Democrats. We do have is a lot of connections to Ukrainians, along with a lot of money. When the FBI pulled back the curtain from the sordid dealings of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, they found Ukrainians aplenty. Manafort was connected to Ukrainian politician Serhiy Lyovochkin and oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, among others, and received at least $60 million for his work. While some of these individuals favored Russia, their main interest was to maintain power and profits in Ukraine. Manafort struggled to satisfy them even as his connections drew attention and, ultimately, resulted in his being dismissed from the Trump campaign.
Continues...
Source: https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/24/is-mueller-uncovering-ukrainian-rather-the-russian-collusion/
dem4decades
(11,301 posts)diva77
(7,652 posts)All the networks are on par with Fux
dem4decades
(11,301 posts)Both had problems with Durham today.
Mike Nelson
(9,961 posts)... the warning. I will steer clear of CBS!
PSPS
(13,609 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Wasn't he a regular contributor/expert for MSNBC? Am I mis-remembering? Or did he get fired (or not-renewed/not contracted) by MSNBC for some reason?
hlthe2b
(102,333 posts)He has always come across well, but to say he is inconsistent with his interpretations would be the understatement.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I had seen his show many times, but infrequently. Seems as though I'd also seen him on Rachel or O'Donnell a few times (but it may have just been that I've seen him throughout the cable-news universe as I often channel surf.)
He's a bit of a mess.
hlthe2b
(102,333 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That explains it then... he's a freelancer who flits from network to network. I had incorrectly assumed that he (like others appear to be) was under exclusive contract.
Thanks for the extra info.