media have found the next shiny object to replace the Hillary email story.

[Gabi Hayes]

can you guess what it is?

I've been watching, and, outside the trump dysfunction this morning it's ALL about the ransom deal, which is how it's being uniformly characterized, just as the emails were falsely presented as a huge lie on Hillary's part.

I wonder how long it will last.....

hopefully trump will say something ineffably stupid/offensive to put the heat back where it belongs

but....for the next several days, watch for this to be the big story, the new narrative. they're LAPPING it up in the MSM...can't get enough of it.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Yeah

And of course MSNBC lead with it at 5 AM. There's nothing there.

Just like there is NEVER anything there when it comes to HRC. They make up shit to get people angry then drop the ball. They are no different than Trump.

[Gabi Hayes]

2. this is pretty much where the clinton scandal industry got its start....amazingly lucrative!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/whitewater/lyonsarticle.html

Even Arkansans long weary of Clinton's amoeba-like style of leadership--his indecisiveness, his downright genius for equivocation, his habit of launching more trial balloons than the National Weather Service--can't recognize the caricature of either the man or his milieu in the national press. And we're not just talking about such off-the-wall publications as The American Spectator or the Wall Street Journal editorial page. In The New Republic, author L.J. Davis accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of a nefarious plot to void Arkansas usury limits for the benefit of the First Lady's banker clients. Problem is, the deed was done through an amendment to the Arkansas constitution by public referendum during the term of Republican Governor Frank White--a banker.

So how did we get here? Well, at the expense of shocking you, dear reader, it all began with the New York Times--specifically with a series of much-praised articles by investigative reporter Jeff Gerth: groundbreaking, exhaustively researched, but not particularly fair or balanced stories that combine a prosecutorial bias and the art of tactical omission to insinuate all manner of sin and skulduggery. Accompanied by a series of indignant editorials, Gerth's work helped create a full-scale media clamor last December for a special prosecutor. Testimony in recent Senate hearings showed that the Resolution Trust Corporation's Whitewater investigation began in direct response to the Times coverage; the hearings themselves resulted in large part from the Clinton Administration's panicky reaction to reporters' queries about the RTC probe, Gerth's among them. Absent the near-talismanic role of the New York Times in American journalism, the whole complex of allegations and suspicions subsumed under the word "Whitewater" might never have made it to the front page, much less come to dominate the national political dialogue for months at a time. It is all the more disturbing, then, that most of the insinuations in Gerth's reporting are either highly implausible or demonstrably false.

Let us return briefly to those thrilling days of yesteryear--specifically the 1992 primary season. On March 8, 1992, Jeff Gerth's initial story about Whitewater appeared on the Times front page under the headline CLINTONS JOINED S.&L. OPERATOR IN AN OZARK REAL-ESTATE VENTURE:

.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. That was the first election I voted in

My default on all things Hillary Clinton is . . .

It's a lie.

They only tell lies when they speak of this honorable woman and her service to Americans.


Shame, shame, shame on them.

[brooklynite]

4. Go to Google News and enter "Hillary Clinton"

There are NO Iran stories in the list.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. do you watch tv? that's where the stories are

CNN just ran the story twice in a row....they're doing the second of two back to back as I type. they do this story at least twice an hour. msnbc is doing it at least once per hour

how many times a day does that work out to?

if it's not on tv, it didn't happen

who pays attention to the written word anymore?

they did the exact same thing with the emails, pounded it to death, until this next one came around. it's what they do. it's their strategy: one bullshit story after the next, in groups. whichever one sticks to the wall is the one they go with. and this one, like the emails, has NObody on the dem side to defend it. this one is even worse than the emails, when, for the first ten or so presentations, they had three or four dems trying to give the other side. since yesterday, they've had ONE state dept. spokesman explaining. nobody since then. always at least one wingnut, with the host(ess) cringing in sorrow at the plight of the once and future hostages, making the charge that this will continue because of our fecklessness. nice narrative, yes?

and your google effort was ridiculous

try this:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=iran+ransom

her name has NOTHING to do with this bullshit story, but they're pinning it on HER, even though she has little to do with it

jesus