So much for free speech free press.........
House Democrats Want ‘Oversight’ over Fox News’ Editorial Decisions
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are demanding to know why Fox News did not publish a story prior to the 2016 election about an alleged affair years before between porn star Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019...decisions/
The Democratic party is turning into a gigantic Onion article.
(04-04-2019, 07:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]So much for free speech free press.........
House Democrats Want ‘Oversight’ over Fox News’ Editorial Decisions
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are demanding to know why Fox News did not publish a story prior to the 2016 election about an alleged affair years before between porn star Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019...decisions/
Every journalist and every network should be upset if Cummings is actually doing this.
(04-04-2019, 07:48 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 07:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]So much for free speech free press.........
House Democrats Want ‘Oversight’ over Fox News’ Editorial Decisions
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are demanding to know why Fox News did not publish a story prior to the 2016 election about an alleged affair years before between porn star Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019...decisions/
Every journalist and every network should be upset if Cummings is actually doing this.
An overwhelming number of journalists are morons.
(04-04-2019, 07:52 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 07:48 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Every journalist and every network should be upset if Cummings is actually doing this.
An overwhelming number of journalists are morons.
LOL. I won't argue with that. Cummings is overstretching his reach regardless if the article is indeed accurate.
Ways and means wants tax returns, intelligence wants sources, methods, and grand jury testimony...
But Trump is "destroying the institutions of our democracy" because he calls someone a name.
A SLIGHTLY fair MSM and 2020 would be over already.
(04-04-2019, 09:03 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ways and means wants tax returns, intelligence wants sources, methods, and grand jury testimony...
But Trump is "destroying the institutions of our democracy" because he calls someone a name.
A SLIGHTLY fair MSM and 2020 would be over already.
The House and Senate should be able to get most of those things. Not all of them, but the Legislative Branch needs to know what the Executive Branch is doing.
But trying to make the leaders of a privately owned cable TV channel answer for editorial decisions made 2 years ago... that's clearly not their role.
(04-04-2019, 09:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 09:03 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Ways and means wants tax returns, intelligence wants sources, methods, and grand jury testimony...
But Trump is "destroying the institutions of our democracy" because he calls someone a name.
A SLIGHTLY fair MSM and 2020 would be over already.
The House and Senate should be able to get most of those things. Not all of them, but the Legislative Branch needs to know what the Executive Branch is doing.
But trying to make the leaders of a privately owned cable TV channel answer for editorial decisions made 2 years ago... that's clearly not their role.
No. The legislative branch does not control the executive branch. Congress can only request said items in support of legislative initiative or of a specific oversight, not some broad "because I said so" fashion that we see now. They are not an investigative or judicial authority. That is what makes this so called Fox News oversight so idiotic. They have gone power hungry and will continue to ignore their elected duties to chase unicorns until slapped back down to earth!
(04-04-2019, 10:32 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 09:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The House and Senate should be able to get most of those things. Not all of them, but the Legislative Branch needs to know what the Executive Branch is doing.
But trying to make the leaders of a privately owned cable TV channel answer for editorial decisions made 2 years ago... that's clearly not their role.
No. The legislative branch does not control the executive branch. Congress can only request said items in support of legislative initiative or of a specific oversight, not some broad "because I said so" fashion that we see now. They are not an investigative or judicial authority. That is what makes this so called Fox News oversight so idiotic. They have gone power hungry and will continue to ignore their elected duties to chase unicorns until slapped back down to earth!
Interesting.
Can you show us where you espoused this view at any point between January 2011 and January 2017?
Interesting. Did Fox News spike a story to protect Trump during the election? I wonder if that is actually illegal. Some people are alleging that that is a campaign contribution, but I can't see the difference between that and the normal slanting of the news that takes place everywhere.
It's an interesting issue, but I think the complaint would fail on First Amendment grounds.
But of course the Breitbart headline is deceptive, because the Democrats aren't asking for oversight over Fox News editorial decisions at all. They just want to know what happened in this one particular case.
(04-04-2019, 10:34 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 10:32 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]No. The legislative branch does not control the executive branch. Congress can only request said items in support of legislative initiative or of a specific oversight, not some broad "because I said so" fashion that we see now. They are not an investigative or judicial authority. That is what makes this so called Fox News oversight so idiotic. They have gone power hungry and will continue to ignore their elected duties to chase unicorns until slapped back down to earth!
Interesting.
Can you show us where you espoused this view at any point between January 2011 and January 2017?
2011? Why not just go back to 1788 for the basis of my point of view?
(04-04-2019, 10:42 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 10:34 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting.
Can you show us where you espoused this view at any point between January 2011 and January 2017?
2011? Why not just go back to 1788 for the basis of my point of view?
Nah. Tell me if it was appropriate for Congress to try to investigate operation Fast and Furious in 2011.
(04-04-2019, 11:12 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 11:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Nah. Tell me if it was appropriate for Congress to try to investigate operation Fast and Furious in 2011.
It's reasonable for Congress to investigate disastrous decisions by government agencies. What disastrous result are they investigating in this case, and which government agency?
Top secret security clearance was given to civilians who owe money to leaders and oligarchs in foreign governments.
(04-04-2019, 11:48 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-04-2019, 11:12 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]It's reasonable for Congress to investigate disastrous decisions by government agencies. What disastrous result are they investigating in this case, and which government agency?
Top secret security clearance was given to civilians who owe money to leaders and oligarchs in foreign governments.
Clearances aren't given. They are investigated and ajudicated. Foreign money, living in a foreign country or even having foreign friends is not a disqualification. In any case, just because you have a clearance doesn't mean you have access to ALL materials under that classification or lower. You should be more worried as to why a corrupt former classification authority like Hillary still has an active clearance. I've held a higher clearance than her yet mine was marked inactive and a new NDA filed as soon as I retired.
What does this have to do with this thread or the Congressional over reach? Once again, they are not a judicial authority nor can they investigate anything and everything they feel like.
(04-04-2019, 07:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]So much for free speech free press.........
House Democrats Want ‘Oversight’ over Fox News’ Editorial Decisions
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are demanding to know why Fox News did not publish a story prior to the 2016 election about an alleged affair years before between porn star Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019...decisions/
Ok, sure, just as soon as CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and the entire internet explain why the dossier was buried. And after Reuters explains why they withheld a damaging story on Beto. Don't open this can of worms, because they might not like what they find at the bottom