Incredible MSNBC Bias (1 Viewer)

[Stinger]

For the past 6 months my viewing of Hardball and other MSNBC shows has been getting less and less frequent. How many hours can they devote to the Rove/Libby non-story. Everynight they have a panel discussing the same old news stating opinion as fact and assertions as facts especially reporter David Schuster. I really think it's the same Schuster report they just use a computer to change the color of his suit. And of course they are all over the Cunningham news and Delay is a never ending topic even though he is no longer a congressional leader.

So How about Rep. Mollohan (D). The FORMER top Democrat on the House Ethics committed where the Dems have been busy point fingers for the last 8 years? I trust everyone knows of his ethical and possible criminal problems?

Has MSNBC covered this story? Well a searh of their website results in this

"Your query - Mollohan - did not match any documents."

http://msnbc.msn.com/?search=MSNBC&q=Mollohan&submit=Search&id=11881780&FORM=AE&os=0&gs=1&p=1

Amazing the bias. No wonder the Dems take their supporters for fools, they know the media which serves them protects them.

 

[Stinger]

Hmmmm even the libs and Dems here who like to speak of their outrage over government corruption, when it is a Republican, are strikingly silent over this one.

What's the matter lost your issue?

 

[talloulou]

I haven't taken Chris seriously since I heard him ask if it was "fair to compare Laura Bush to a stepford wife.....?":roll:

 

[aps]

I agree, Stinger, it is a little strange. However, I went onto Google and did the following search, "Alan Mollohan msnbc." Here are some of the hits:

WP: Dem on ethics panel faces allegations - washingtonpost.com ...The top Democrat on the House ethics committee, Alan Mollohan, will leave the panel ... Most viewed on MSNBC.com. • Young Mars offered brief chance for life ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12425717/ - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

(the story isn't there anymore, but it was a story that the Washington Post had published.)

First Read - First Read - MSNBC.com Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is temporarily stepping down as ranking Democrat on the House ... Alan Mollohan (D), the ranking member on the House Ethics Committee, ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5613477/ - 85k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.msnbc.msn.com ]

Senior Democrat on House ethics panel stepping downRep. Alan Mollohan, DW.Va., decided on his own to leave, at least temporarily, his party leader said Friday. SEIU president joins fast in support of ...
famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/ap04-21-133642.asp?t=APNEW - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

 

[Stinger]

I agree, Stinger, it is a little strange. However, I went onto Google and did the following search, "Alan Mollohan msnbc." Here are some of the hits:
(the story isn't there anymore, but it was a story that the Washington Post had published.)

A couple of minor "referrals", but not one story about it on MSNBC yet they are obsessed with Rove and Libby and Delay.

Bias?

 

[Stinger]

I haven't taken Chris seriously since I heard him ask if it was "fair to compare Laura Bush to a stepford wife.....?":roll:

It's not just his show, MSNBC is totally ignoring this Democrat corruption scancal.

 

[aps]

A couple of minor "referrals", but not one story about it on MSNBC yet they are obsessed with Rove and Libby and Delay.

Bias?

Could be bias. Personally, for me, I have thought that Chris Matthews was more of a republican than he was a democrat. Yes, I know he worked for Jimmy Carter, but people can change parties during their lifetime.

The Mollohan situation isn't as interesting as the Rove/Libby controversy. Right now, I am loving Chris Matthews and the coverage he is doing with the Rove case. So it's probably hard for me to be objective since I want Rove to be indicted. Your complaint is valid.

However, having said that, both Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are conservatives. Why aren't they covering this issue? Is MSNBC preventing them? I have a hard time thinking that such is the case.

 

[Donkey1499]

Mollohan isn't as interesting? WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! He's just as big of a crook as Rove and Libby. Why not throw all the rotten apples into the trash where they belong? But yes, MSNBC is bias.

 

[aps]

Mollohan isn't as interesting? WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! He's just as big of a crook as Rove and Libby. Why not throw all the rotten apples into the trash where they belong? But yes, MSNBC is bias.

Yes, Mollohan is not as interesting as the investigation whether two senior people in the White House, who work for the two most important people in the United States, outed a CIA covert agent or lied when testifying before the grand jury.

 

[Donkey1499]

Yes, Mollohan is not as interesting as the investigation whether two senior people in the White House, who work for the two most important people in the United States, outed a CIA covert agent or lied when testifying before the grand jury.

You've got them on the perjury, that there sealed their fates; but about the ousting of a "covert agent"? That is where the truth gets a little miscombobulated. When her so-called "cover" was blown, she was no longer a covert agent (I think); but the real money-shot is that her "covert" status was dubbed "un-classified" at the time of the so-called "leak".
(Of which I noticed that when a republican gives ousts info, it's called a "leak"; but when a democrat does the same thing it's called "whistle-blowing". A little bias, don't ya think?)

 

[aps]

You've got them on the perjury, that there sealed their fates; but about the ousting of a "covert agent"? That is where the truth gets a little miscombobulated. When her so-called "cover" was blown, she was no longer a covert agent (I think); but the real money-shot is that her "covert" status was dubbed "un-classified" at the time of the so-called "leak".
(Of which I noticed that when a republican gives ousts info, it's called a "leak"; but when a democrat does the same thing it's called "whistle-blowing". A little bias, don't ya think?)

Wow. I really proud of you for showing some doubt about whether she was not covert. I think she was covert; otherwise, there would be no reason for the CIA to refer the case to the Justice Dept. and for the Justice Dept. to refer the case to a Special Prosecutor. Having said that, I don't believe that the intent required in teh statute is there. But hey, let's not forget how Bill Clinton got into trouble. He lied before a grand jury. Oops.

I have to admit that I am suprised that the whole Mollohan issue has not been discussed more. Has Fox News covered it?

 

[Donkey1499]

Wow. I really proud of you for showing some doubt about whether she was not covert. I think she was covert; otherwise, there would be no reason for the CIA to refer the case to the Justice Dept. and for the Justice Dept. to refer the case to a Special Prosecutor. Having said that, I don't believe that the intent required in teh statute is there. But hey, let's not forget how Bill Clinton got into trouble. He lied before a grand jury. Oops.

I have to admit that I am suprised that the whole Mollohan issue has not been discussed more. Has Fox News covered it?

Hell yeah! Fox is all over Mollohan like a wet shirt.

About the covertness... One group said it was unclassified, but the other said it was a leak of top secret info. But besides all that, the perjury charges are enough to end their corrupt political careers and that's all that matters.

 

[aps]

Hell yeah! Fox is all over Mollohan like a wet shirt.

LMAO!! I might have to go check it out.

About the covertness... One group said it was unclassified, but the other said it was a leak of top secret info. But besides all that, the perjury charges are enough to end their corrupt political careers and that's all that matters.

You sound kinda reasonable. :lol:

 

[Donkey1499]

LMAO!! I might have to go check it out.



You sound kinda reasonable. :lol:

Hey, I'm telling it the way it is and how I see it. The truth is right there, but some of us are too blind, or too stupid to see it.

 

[Stinger]

Wow. I really proud of you for showing some doubt about whether she was not covert. I think she was covert; otherwise, there would be no reason for the CIA to refer the case to the Justice Dept.

That is standard policy for anyone who worked there, nothing can be read into that at all.

and for the Justice Dept. to refer the case to a Special Prosecutor.

That was pure politics.

But it goes hand in hand with your Rove is guilty no matter position.

forget how Bill Clinton got into trouble. He lied before a grand jury. Oops.

Knowlingly and for the purpose of obstructing the judicial process in a civil rights lawsuit. For submitting false evidence for the purpose of obstructing justice. For suborning perjury and witness tampering.

The two don't even compare which is Fitzgeralds problem, Rove and Libby had nothing to gain with obstructing and thier actions show quite the opposite, they fully cooperated.

I have to admit that I am suprised that the whole Mollohan issue has not been discussed more. Has Fox News covered it?

Yes but then the Republicans aren't doing a 24/7 smear job on him and getting face time throwing out baseless accusation like the Dems. FOX isn't obessed with it like MSNBC is with Rove and Libby. If Libby is found innocent and Rove has not charges filed someone will have a field day with all the tape of MSNBC and their presumption of guilt here.

 

[Donkey1499]

It doesn't matter if Rove and Libby had nothing to gain from their lies, they still committed perjury, which is a felony.

But if perjury was actually enforced then 98% of all politicians would be behind bars as we speak. But, it isn't so... unfortunately.

 

[Stinger]

It doesn't matter if Rove and Libby had nothing to gain from their lies, they still committed perjury, which is a felony.

If it was for the purpose of obstructing justice then it is perjury. But then people usually only obstruct justice when they have something to gain by doing so, doing it for no reason doesn't make much sense does it. So when I say they didn't have anything gain by doing so I mean why would they knowing lie about a material matter to obstruct justice when they didn't need to? They may have mispoke, but that is not perjury.

But if perjury was actually enforced then 98% of all politicians would be behind bars as we speak. But, it isn't so... unfortunately.

Since 98% of all politicians never testify before a court I think you have you number backwards.