Media, Politics

“Please Stop Trying To Gaslight Us”: MSNBC Host Dismisses Biden “Unmasking” Story

Blessed_effects_of_gas_lights_(1814)In a tweet that reflects a common spin in the media, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell yesterday dismissed the importance of the disclosure that former Vice President Joe Biden requested the “unmasking” of former national security advisor Michael Flynn. Mitchell called Biden’s action “routine” and the story “gaslighting.”  What is striking about this spin is that ignores the fact that Biden, only the day before, denied any involvement in the Flynn investigation or more than passing knowledge of its existence. It also adopts a misleading statistic on the occurrence of such unmasking requests. (I had to share this cartoon entitled “The Blessed Effects of Gas Lights” from London in 1813 on the perceived dangers of gaslighting. It appears the danger remains much the same in the 21st Century).

Mitchell was responded to a tweet from New York Times reporter and MSNBC contributor Charlie Savage that stated:

“Under US surveillance rules, unmasking an American’s identity in a report derived from foreign-intelligence surveillance is routine when necessary to understand (e.g., who was the Russian ambassador talking to?). The NSA did so 10,000 times last year, nearly 17,000 times in 2018.”

I have also pointed out that unmasking is routine among intelligence agencies but it is less routine for political figures like Joe Biden.  Among those asking for the unmasking were not just Biden but then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and Obama’s then-chief of staff Denis McDonough.  The unmasking also occurred shortly before the opposing party was set to take over the White House.  Moreover, we now know that there was no credible evidence of Russian collusion supporting the investigation.

Mitchell, the chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News, however, criticized those who have raised such concerns, tweeting “10 thousand unmasking last year, 17 thousand in 2018. Necessary and routine. Can people please stop trying to gaslight us?” Mitchell pleaded.

Once again, the news element of the story was enhanced by Biden’s earlier denial. Moreover, as I argue in a column this morning in the Hill, the new information adds to the concern over the use of national security systems by the Obama Administration to investigate the campaign and various officials with the opposing party. The media continues to dismiss such concerns despite recent evidence showing that a long list of Obama figures testified that they never saw any evidence of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign.  The Flynn investigation remains controversial for many Americans and Biden’s conflicting answers on his knowledge and involvement magnify the importance of this story. Some of us remain very concerned over the investigation by the Obama Administration based on flimsy and later rejected evidence, including a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

There was nothing unlawful or even strange about Flynn speaking with Russian diplomats as the incoming National Security Adviser, particularly after the Obama Administration imposed sanctions just before the Trump Administration came into office. Once again the date is important. These unmasking requests occurred between November 8, 2016, and January 31, 2017 – literally as the Obama Administration was packing up to leave the White House.  It also occurred when the Flynn’s name was leaked to the media.  It would seem a matter of media interest if Democratic political appointees not only unmasked Flynn as they were leaving office but his identity was then leaked to the media from a classified document.

I believe that Savage’s data (and Mitchell’s use of such data) is legitimate to point out that unmasking is a routine practice. However, the more relevant data is the requests for such unmasking by individuals like Biden, Power, and McDonough.  I do not have that data, but I think that it would be useful before portraying any coverage or commentary as gaslighting.

203 thoughts on ““Please Stop Trying To Gaslight Us”: MSNBC Host Dismisses Biden “Unmasking” Story”

  1. The Liberal Media is having the ultimate meltdown because they have lost control of the narrative

    “Criminal Referrals on Mueller Team”

    “Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, vowed to pursue multiple new criminal referrals amid the ongoing fallout of bombshell revelations in the Justice Department’s handling of the Russia probe.

    Referring to former special counsel Robert Mueller, Nunes said: “We’re looking at doing criminal referrals on the Mueller team, the Mueller dossier team, the Mueller witch hunt, whatever you want to call it. That’s where we are now in our investigation.” Nunes made his remarks in a special new episode of Fox Nation’s “Witch Hunt,” hosted by Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett.”

    Foxnews

  2. **This means Flynn was targeted for unmasking at least two weeks before the Dec. 29 phone call and the vast majority of these unmasking requests did not include intercepted conversations of Flynn having allegedly inappropriate conversations with Kislyak. This may indicate Flynn and other Trump transition officials were being targeted for unmasking as part of a fishing expedition to find dirt on them to undermine Trump’s presidency.

    In addition, there were only seven unmasking requests by seven officials after the Dec. 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call – by Vice President Biden, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other career officials. Since the information in this intercept leaked to the press, these seven officials are suspects for this criminal act.**

    1. Zachinoff,

      Quoting someone without including quotation marks or identifying the person is plagiarism. You’re plagiarizing from a Fox opinion piece written by Fred Fleitz.

      1. New to this site. Just getting the hang of it. Figured out one thing though, you like to preach a lot to commenters you don’t know.

        1. Correct the Record has dispatched several full time shills to this site. They mainly regurgitate DNC talking points all day long and try to disrupt an honest discussion of the issues.

          I usually ignore them. Not always, but usually.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Hey, Paul C Schulte! No, he hasn’t rec’d anything from you.
            Btw. we both got a kick out of your “hands on” advice! LOL

            1. Cindy Bragg – first it was his hands that were involved, not mine. Second, I will find another way to send them.

                1. Cindy Bragg – I really didn’t think you two had that type of relationship. 😉

                    1. Cindy Bragg – 2 things: 1) I am having the worst time figuring out how to send the plays back to you. 2) Would you give WW33 my email address if she asks for it? I have some study skills for her for the Bar.

                    2. Paul C……i’ll be happy to give her your email. I’ll have to go look it up on David’s email……As far as sending the plays back….David was mostly interested in your thoughts and critique.

                    3. Cindy Bragg – I can send you my cell number and David and I can discuss the plays. I have concerns about both, not including grammar errors. 😉

                    4. Paul ……..question…..do you know where and when WW33 will be asking for your e address?

                      David wood enjoy talk8ng with a bona fide playwright!

                    5. Cindy Bragg – no on WW33. Will communicate with David today.

      3. Brilliant! Zachinoff writes of an abuse of power and your concern is the lack of proper citation.

        1. Fleitz’s opinion is nonsense. He claims “This may indicate Flynn and other Trump transition officials were being targeted for unmasking,” but it’s not possible to target someone for unmasking, since (wait for it) the people requesting the unmasking do not know who the person is until after the name is unmasked, and the request comes before the person’s name is known.

          And yes, I expect people not to plagiarize. It suggests that they’re not particularly committed to being ethical.

          1. but it’s not possible to target someone for unmasking, since (wait for it) the people requesting the unmasking do not know who the person is until after the name is unmasked, and the request comes before the person’s name is known.

            Not possible? Isn’t that sweet, you still believe the law is a barrier to corruption. You realize, to mask the identity of an American citizen intercepted in a call, requires identifying the individual. That would mean at least 1 person within the IC knew Gen. Flynn was on that call with Sergey Kislyak. Do you believe that analyst simply masked the name and went on with their work? Of course not. They would follow a process to determine if any action needed to be taken. If the law was followed, it would have been determined the call was within the law and there was no basis for further action.

            But as we now know, (spoiler alert) the law was not followed. It is not unreasonable to believe an administration that would abuse the powers of the IC/FBI/DOJ after an election, hadn’t abused them before the election. And there is evidence to prove that. You’d have to be brain-dead to believe the Obama era IC/FBI/DOJ woke up on November 9th, 2016 and suddenly became corruptible and decided only then should they use their massive powers to do everything the evidence proves they have done.

            So which are you?

            1. Re: “at least 1 person within the IC knew Gen. Flynn was on that call with Sergey Kislyak. Do you believe that analyst simply masked the name and went on with their work?”

              Flynn’s name wasn’t masked in the transcripts of the calls with Kislyak (Comey testified to this, and this testimony was included in one of the exhibits the DOJ appended to its Motion to Dismiss for Flynn’s case. Also, the call transcripts were FBI products, not NSA products. None of these NSA unmasking requests are likely to related to the transcripts for Flynn’s calls with Kislyak for both of those reasons (also, most of these requests predate those calls, so that alone would tell you that they’re not requests to unmask Flynn’s name on the Kislyak calls transcripts).

              “If the law was followed, it would have been determined the call was within the law and there was no basis for further action.”

              That’s false. Pence said that Flynn had lied to him — that Flynn had claimed that he hadn’t discussed sanctions with Kislyak. That meant that the Russians would know Flynn was lying about this and could have leverage. It’s wholly appropriate to interview in that case.

              “as we now know, (spoiler alert) the law was not followed”

              No, we don’t “know” that. You believe this. But belief often isn’t knowledge.

              2. Flynn’s name wasn’t masked in the transcripts of the calls with Kislyak (Comey testified to this,

                I wasn’t aware the transcript of the call had been released. If not, then your star witness is Comey? Yeah, that’s the guy you’re going to hang your CommitToHonestDiscussion hat on?

                None of these NSA unmasking requests are likely,,,

                Full stop at the word likely. Everything after that is opinion. Try again.

                Pence said that Flynn had lied to him — that Flynn had claimed that he hadn’t discussed sanctions with Kislyak.

                Is that the same Flynn that plead guilty to lying to the FBI; the same FBI that admitted Flynn hadn’t actually committed any crime? That guy? Rumor has it that people will plead guilty, even when they’re not, all because law enforcement coerced the confession. Anyway, given the body of evidence already available, VP Pence expressed this recently regarding what Gen. Flynn told the VP:

                Asked if Flynn was appropriately fired, Pence didn’t answer directly but said: “I know what Gen. Flynn told me and I’m more inclined to believe it was unintentional than ever before.”
                https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/495551-pence-says-he-is-deeply-troubled-by-flynn-documents

  3. This means Flynn was targeted for unmasking at least two weeks before the Dec. 29 phone call and the vast majority of these unmasking requests did not include intercepted conversations of Flynn having allegedly inappropriate conversations with Kislyak. This may indicate Flynn and other Trump transition officials were being targeted for unmasking as part of a fishing expedition to find dirt on them to undermine Trump’s presidency.

    In addition, there were only seven unmasking requests by seven officials after the Dec. 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call – by Vice President Biden, then Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other career officials. Since the information in this intercept leaked to the press, these seven officials are suspects for this criminal act.

  4. Who in the heck watches MSNBC!? Too hilarious! Why not just cover a tantrum in a high school paper?

        1. As others have noted, it appears this blog has attracted the attention of a bunch of Democrats shills. That is unfortunate, and I’ve seen it happen in other blogs and other websites. Eventually it turns the page into a pissing match with lots of acrimony.
          I noticed lots of anti-Trump comments, lots of anti-Turley comments, and suggestions that he’s not competent. This wasn’t a feature of this blog commentary before. Everybody’s entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean we have to respect the opinions of these troublemakers that have arrived here. For myself, I plan to ignore them. By not responding, we can make them go away.

  5. Boris Johnson won big for Brexit just hours after the media say he’s down.

    Nancy Pelosi says the case for impeachment remains very strong after dropping the only impeachment offence
    charge she had on President Trump.

    former FBI director James Comey insists that the Inspector General vindicated him on partisan impropriety just days
    after the IG explicitly did not vindicate him

    All of which shows us a central feature about the left:

    leftists will never give up the lie.
    they will never give up the narrative no matter how clearly the facts contradict them

  6. Prof. Turley,

    Your column is astoundingly sloppy, even irresponsible. Among other things, you ignore the following:
    1) The people who request unmasking do not know in advance the identity of the person being unmasked, and so cannot know that that person is an “official[] with the opposing party” — that only becomes known after the unmasking has occurred.
    2) The unmasking requests that Grenell declassified mostly occurred before Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak. Those that occurred before were not related to that investigation. As for those that occurred after, you need to dig into the details. As Marcie Wheeler notes (www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/13/of-over-40-potential-unmaskings-of-mike-flynn-during-the-transition-just-one-led-to-criminal-charges/ ), “Only 8 of them post-date the calls between Flynn and Kislyak … And of those, only the McDonough unmasking corresponds even remotely to the time the IC discovered Flynn’s call, except we know FBI had already discovered it on January 4. Which is to say zero of these unmaskings could be the original one” for the Flynn investigation. She goes on to note “There’s probably a very good reason why the original unmasking [for the Flynn investigation] doesn’t show up on this list, which reflects only NSA products and only finished intelligence reports. According to Jim Comey’s testimony, the FBI found the Kislyak-Flynn calls, not the NSA.”

    Both of these points were made in discussions of the unmasking news, and for you to either be unaware of them prior to writing this column or to ignore them really isn’t excusable.

    “it is less routine for political figures like Joe Biden”

    a) You provide no evidence to substantiate your claim.
    b) Biden was a member of the National Security Council at the time, and one would expect all people on the NSC (whether political or not) to use it pretty routinely.

    You’re actually silent about the biggest news from this, which is that there was a reason for multiple people to request unmasking that resulted in Flynn being unmasked much earlier, unconnected to his Kislyak conversation, and that the constellation of people who made the requests points to a different concern. As Susan Simpson notes, “what was Flynn involved in that would have been of concern for people at Energy, Treasury, NATO? Well, the nuclear reactor deal that Michael Flynn was texting his business partners about during Trump’s inauguration would seem to fit the bill. … So the existence of previously-unknown intercepted foreign communications that identified Flynn has now been confirmed. But that information didn’t come from any of the 30 US officials who requested unmasking. It came from Acting DNI @RichardGrenell — when he released it today.” (a Twitter thread starting with https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2/status/1260650916736151552 )

      1. PS Excellent information commit. Our host is a joke as an investigative journalist and should stick to the law.

      2. There are laws and Democrat leadership was not following them. They have been caught and exposed and there will be consequences under the law.

        Let me explain something. If you say you are for rule of law that means not just the laws when and where you pick them, applied only to your adversaries. But applied to your own favorites as well.

        1. Well Kurtz, if you believe that and have any confidence in your analysis, you should be able to offer something more substantive than moron level pseudo patriotic tripe.

          1. …moron level pseudo patriotic tripe.

            And there it is; in book’s worldview, a comment about equal justice under the law is unworthy of his support. 🙄

    2. You seem to live in a false reality populated by people just like you! This is the biggest scandal in U.S. history and you are too biased to recognize it.

      1. If you think I wrote anything false, simply quote it and provide evidence that it’s false. If your evidence is correct, I’ll gladly admit that I wrote something wrong and correct it. But evidenceless accusations are pretty worthless to me.

        My guess: you’re unwilling to dig into the details (the dates of the unmasking requests, relevant testimony under oath, etc.) and you’re not going to provide any evidence of me saying something false. But I’d be happy to be mistaken about that. As my name says, I’m committed to honest discussion, and if I’m wrong about something, I’d much rather learn what’s correct. But that learning is based on evidence, not empty claims.

        2. This person who is probably our friend Seth Peter, invites us to waste time refuting his false refutations. There is no need; Turley’s article explains sufficiently well and these criticisms are merely bogus and not worth addressing.

          So, have a nice day! Decline to waste time on your crud.

      2. Oh, I think they recognize it. But they are not here to provide honest discussion. They are DNC shills, and they are frantic. The whole Obama administration and DNC in general is being revealed for the crooks and liars they truly are.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    3. You wrote “You’re actually silent about the biggest news from this, which is that there was a reason for multiple people to request unmasking …”
      But after investigation by Mueller and gang nothing was discovered.
      So your reason for the suspicion is totally unfounded.

      1. That’s not correct bunky. Read the report. Multiple instances of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians are cited, though they were not deemed sufficient for a criminal conspiracy charge. The report also noted that the WH stonewalled the investigation, IN later testimony under oath Mueller specifically said they did not address collusion as it is not a legal standard, nor did they clear the campaign of the possibility of conspiracy. They did not find sufficient evidence.

        1. Hillary Clinton+Fusion GPS+Christopher Steele+PHONY Dossier=Jail Time!

    4. Thanks for the insight, Commit. Always good to check in with factual reality. This blog plays quite loose with it.

      As for the article, Turley had to answer Andrea’s charge of gaslighting with more gaslighting. Ahhh…, the burdens of Trump surrogacy.

    5. His article is well done, and you pathetic detractors will insult anything that doesn’t fit your own biases. You have zero credibility.

    6. Sorry, that should have been Marcy Wheeler, not Marcie.

  7. One of the “unmaskers” said, under oath, that she had not unmasked him, so who unmasked Flynn in her name on her secured computer. Either she perjured herself or someone in her office is a felon.

    2. How about you name the person you’re referring to, and quote the question she was asked and her full response?

      Without that, there’s no way to know whether your claim is true. As a simple example, she might have been asked about unmasking re: the Flynn investigation, and most of these unmasking requests are clearly unrelated to that, as they occurred *before* Flynn’s conversation with Kislyak.

        1. Y’all seek to create a situation where every point of fact or law is disputed and so the new or naive reader will simply feel frustrated, throw up their hands like Pilate, and retreat back to their native camp. This dynamic you believe will favor you. Perhaps you have miscalculated however. Perhaps the never ending discourse frustrating public debate, actually favors your rivals.

          We will see

          1. Translating bi-polar Kurtz: “I got nothing and am too lazy to go find something I’m not sure is there.”

            1. Ha ha not bipolar though it wouldn’t necessarily discredit a person if they were, some of the great creative minds of history were obviously bipolar

              I just dont take homework assignments from nobodies

        2. YNON:

          “Nothing he says is ever true; for more of the same, see mesblo.”
          **************************
          Hey, thanks again for letting me live in your head. It’s very specious … I mean spacious … around here.

  8. Speaking of Dim hacks, who’s this John Gleeson (UVA law who has to drive lawyer Bruce Cutler off the case so he could finally convict Gotti who wupped him every time before) character Judge Emmet Sullivan appointed to argue Sullivan’s own motion the he should find Flynn in contempt of court? Sullivan is the same court who called Flynn a traitor and falsely accused him of being a foreign agent while working in the White House. I think Judge Emmet should have just made the motion himself and then found him guilty as a jury of one. Sullivan could have thusly run outside and built the gallows before executing Flynn himself.These Dims all think they’re American Caesars. (See Govs. Blackface, Wolf and the hag in Michigan whose name should always escape us). Here’s hoping for a fun day in the Curia of Pompey real soon. Sic Semper Tyrannis, baby!

    1. Sullivan correctly told Flynn he “sold your country out.”Flynn is a traitor who helped sell out our election integrity to help his boss.

      After being corrected on the dates when Flynn was employed as an agent for Turkey, Sullivan apologized and corrected himself almost immediately. Read the transcript.

      1. bookworm:

        “Read the transcript.”
        **************************
        Thank you to your son* for the comment but I did read it and what it showed was a judge shooting his mouth off without thinking. The “traitor” thing was over the top for anyone but most of all a judge who knows (or should) that its a legal impossibility under these facts. Here’s a guy who took incoming being chastised about his patriotism by a guy whose closest brush with hostility was being hurried in the bar line at the annual Christmas party.

        Sullivan’s told us who he is; you just aren’t listening.

        * as an aside, what’s it like to live vicariously through your kid?

      2. Flynn’s lawful work for the odious regime of Turkey, is a slight stain indeed, however, no more treasonous and no more a stain that that of the other tens of thousands of DC operatives working for foreigners.

        Actually, what’s despicable is that you keep on using this fig leaf to justify the perjury trap which was the strategem of a frustrated rogue agent Sztroke trying to cancel a lawful election. Shame!

    1. No, because your reports are fantasies of the stupid and not noteworthy. You have stiff competition for drivel, up your game.

      1. “Believe all Women”…Except when a Democrat is Accused! Then wait 3 weeks to report the story. And then send Death threats to the Victim. LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER!

      2. Can you formulate an original thought or do you just second whatever your more prolific friends say?

        “YNOT” quit playing third fiddle and give a try and thinking and writing some drivel of your own?

  10. The author of this article misspelled once again. Opening sentences. Andrew Mitchell. Who is that guy? Later a reference to Andrea Mitchell.

    Then all this BS about gaslights.

  11. Goo, goop, poop. All the language invoked in the article is goofy.
    One thing. You can talk to any Chinese communist on the world and no problem. But you can’t talk to a Russian.
    Why is that?

  12. It is ok for the Left to break the law but bigoted, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, …..big yawn…….when the Right do it…

    And they wonder why Fox News decimates them in ratings and why Hillary lost even if Andrew (sic) Mitchell and comrades collectively promoted the b!tch

    Gaslight them all, preferably from one pilot light to prevent carbon footprint

  13. In his despicable spin of news in full on support of Trump administration conspiracy theories – now a daily event here – JT says falsely:

    “In a tweet that reflects a common spin in the media, MSNBC anchor Andrew Mitchell yesterday dismissed the importance of the disclosure that former Vice President Joe Biden requested the “unmasking” of former national security advisor Michael Flynn. Mitchell called Biden’s action “routine” and the story “gaslighting.” What is striking about this spin is that ignores the fact that Biden, only the day before, denied any involvement in the Flynn investigation or more than passing knowledge of its existence. …”

    Biden did not request “the “unmasking” of former national security advisor Michael Flynn.” He – or someone briefing him, see below – asked for the the unmasking of who was talking to the Russian Ambassador the day after respected WaPo columnist David Ignatious revealed Flynn’s calls with the Russian Ambassador the day after Obama announced sanctions against his country for interfering in our election. That was on Jan 12, or 8 days before he left office. Further, that is not inconsistent with his denying “any involvement in the Flynn investigation or more than passing knowledge of its existence.”

    If he can prove otherwise, JT should show the goods or quit gas lighting for Trump.

    Further, if JT took the time to thoroughly investigate something before writing, he would learn via the NYTs coverage that “Sometimes an intelligence officer briefing a senior official makes the request, but those are logged as coming from the senior official.”

    In short, what a load of BS JT is hauling around, enabled by the Trump crony Grenell who is the new DNI. Maybe he’ll publish the 29,000 instances of unmasking done by the Trump administration in the last 2 years. What are the odds?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/us/politics/unmasking-flynn.html

    1. I stopped reading your rant at “despicable”. Wrote you off immediately.

      3. Smart move! All bythebullsh!t does is regurgitate DNC talking points, ad nauseum. He and his buds here are Joeseph Goebbels, who moved from daily to hourly broadcasts of propaganda as the Nazi situation deteriorated.

        So there is a metric of sorts – the more the shills spin and lie, the worse the situation is for the Democrats. Which means the Democrats are hurting pretty badly right now.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    2. And maybe he could try spelling Andrea’s name correctly in order to gaslight all proper and everything. JT’s an influencer for the Trump campaign, speed is of the essence when putting these blog posts out I guess.

    3. “conspiracy theories” are tried and proven factual in courts day after day.

      “conspiracy theory” as a detraction is a red cape to scare people away people from thinking about nefarious plans of “Deep State” miscreants abusing their public offices against lawfully elected incoming administrations.

      You are running on the fumes of “social proof” here since your gas tank of facts and law is empty and has now almost completely failed you.

  14. Saw an interview with a reporter from Axios last night who claimed Flynn was unmasked long before any conversations with the Russian ambassador.

    1. Meaningless. Each “unmasking” is a separate event tied to a specific conversation. An unmasking is not like a tattoo; an unmasking is not permanent.

  15. Like virtually every MSNBC employee, she is not a journalist, she’s a mouthpiece for the democrat party.

    Any expectation of honesty/integrity is misplaced.

  16. Andrea Mitchell is a self-important Dim hack. We all know it. Let’s hope she gets furloughed as an unexpected benefit of the Wuhan Virus.

    1. Andrea Mitchell has been a national and international level reporter for 44 years, not a position one holds without a reputation for objective and fair coverage. That’s how journalists survive that long through Reagan era to the Obama era, not partisan editorializing like JT now favors. She has been married to Ayn Randian and GOP economist Alan Greenspan for 23 years.

      1. Like you, she’s living proof that longevity doesn’t equal competence. She’s a poor excuse for a reporter and keeps her job because she serves her Dim masters well.

        1. Mitchell has been a disgrace to journalism for many years. You may recall that way back when Romney was running for President she edited a tape in a way that made him look like a fool. She has no ethics and no discernible journalistic skills which make her a perfect fit for MSNBC.

      2. I do not think that “integrity” passes along from one partner to another during sex. Be honest – Andrea works for NBC, which is in the tank for the Democrats. So what do think she is going to say, “My God! Obama is worse than Nixon about spying on his political opposition!”

        C’mon, be real. Democrats are simply going to refuse to ever “see anything” that reveals them for the criminal and power-mad party they have been become. And remember, I used to be a Democrat, and a Hillary supporter. But I also live in the Real World, so it does not bother me to see them for what they have become.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      3. You obviously live in a Barnum and Bailey world. Her longevity has no correlation to her Bone Fides as a reporter, only her ability to kiss the ring of her Masters. She is only a news reader.

      4. Alan Greenspan wishes he could forget how he was entranced by Ayn Rand, who was married to a guy she claimed to adore as a hero, even she was banging a guy like 20 some years older than her named Nathaniel Branden, obviously, and her whole synagogue of acolytes such as Greenspan looked the other way

        Is Andrea Mitchell old enough to be one of these creepy people? That is not meritorious if true

        and don’t pretend you like ayn rand either book, surely you dont. this was pure distraction, though an amusing one i have to admit. it’s why i bother to read your posts, occasionally something fun like this you throw out there like a turdlet in the punchbowl

        1. Not sure how anything I posted would be taken as indicating I like Ayn Rand.

  17. Andrea Mitchell is the worst interviewer on TV. She cannot form a complete sentence.

  18. 39 individuals asking for general Flynn to be unmasked is legal, unless used for political purposes, but 39 individuals makes finding the leak of Flynn’s name to the Washington Post, which is illegal, almost impossible.

  19. Despite the cartoon, gas light was quite safe. It was just that electric light was less expensive once available.

  20. Andrea Mitchell is a DEM Party spokesperson acting a news reporter, she is part of the Washington Elite and very Dem loyalist. She has no creditability.

    Biden and others have a lot to explain and those current officials working for the Gov’t think they should be looking for a new job, suggest the Administration will clean house of the Obama loyalist.

Comments are closed.