Lisa Page Hired By NBC and MSNBC As Legal Analyst

Screen Shot 2020-06-06 at 4.38.31 AM
YouTube Screenshot

Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst.  The move continues a trend started by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal analysis on the Trump Administration. We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for repeatedly lying to federal investigators.  The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.

Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.

I have denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page’s affair with fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok. There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation.  Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the FBI as a whole.  She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with Strzok.

However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations.  It has long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews.  Either NBC is paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow’s show or it is hiring an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.

It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news story, or at least a significant part of it.

Andrew-Weissman
Andrew Weissman.

440px-Trey_Gowdy_official_congressional_photoAndrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration’s response to the protests is a bit jarring for some.

Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her emails with Strzok.  Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI.  They were undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as “insurance” in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here’s what Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [Andrew McCabe is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …

What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn case. In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that “it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in.” So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.

It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn.  That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.” On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him “Hey don’t close RAZOR.”  The FBI official replied, “Okay.” Strzok then confirmed again, “Still open right? And you’re the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file.” The FBI official confirmed: “I have not closed it … Still open.” Strzok responded “Rgr. I couldn’t raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now.”

Strzok also texted Page: “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”

Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice Department as will CNN’s legal analyst Andrew McCabe.

In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the “insurance policy” email as all part of her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump.  In what is now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped her frame the response.  Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was deafening.

 

Page explained:

“It’s an analogy. First of all, it’s not my text, so I’m sort of interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we’re using an analogy. We’re talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that he’s going to be president or not.”

You have to keep in mind … if President Trump doesn’t become president, the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia, plummets. You’re not so worried about what Russia’s doing vis-à-vis a member of his campaign if he’s not president because you’re not going to have access to classified information, you’re not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security apparatus. So, the ‘insurance policy’ was an analogy. It’s like an insurance policy when you’re 40. You don’t expect to die when you’re 40, yet you still have an insurance policy.”

Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:

“So, don’t just hope that he’s not going to be elected and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case he does get in there.”

Page simply responds “Exactly.”

Well, not exactly. Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any Russian collusion.  Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama officials who denied ever seeing such evidence, including some who publicly suggested that they had.  Indeed, Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that “it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing” to connect Trump and Russia.  There was little reason to believe in this “insurance policy” given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.

The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation — which Page called their “insurance policy.”

Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans.

Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks.  Why have echo journalism when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate at the appearance of opposing views (as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a conservative opinion column), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or others in the Administration.

With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far bank.

275 thoughts on “Lisa Page Hired By NBC and MSNBC As Legal Analyst”

    1. Absurd, it looks like it’s about New York Magazine. Your caption reflects someone unable to make sense of events.

      1. You’re proceeding under the fiction that these are distinct entities. It’s not 1977 anymore, Peter, even if your old platform shoes are still in your closet.

        1. Absurd, like most Trumpers, you’re beginning to see ever-bigger conspiracies. And they’ll get even bigger in weeks to come as events spin beyond the control of Trump enablers.

          1. You got that right Seth, Of course, when it comes down to it…It’s Hillary and Obama’s fault.

    2. Yup. That is *precisely* what they are. At some point, as a society, we are going to have to acknowledge that a great many of the helicoptered simply aren’t well. It has nothing to do with politics, that aspect is just convenient to those who would control them, and make no mistake, more than anything clinical, the level of conformity is just astonishing. They have honestly and truly confused conformity with unity.

    3. Hilarious! The Left/DNC is trying sooo hard to control the narrative that they have muzzled Andrew Sullivan from talking about the riots and the looting. That ties in with their, “There wasn’t that much looting going on” ridiculous narrative.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    4. Well no, that is not the Democratic Party, it’s New York magazine. I am a member of the Democratic Party, and given primary results in both 2016 and 2020, not an atypical member. I neither subscribe to NY magazine, take responsibility for it’s content or positions, and if this report is true – I’ll seek confirmation from a more reliable source – agree with blocking Sullivan’s column.

      Carry on.

      1. “agree with blocking Sullivan’s column.”

        Typical stupidity by the ideological group that despises the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

  1. What they’re telling us is that being hip deep in malfeasance (some of which is either criminal or crime-adjacent) is simply not status-lowering in the eyes of their employees and remaining viewers. Again, the culture of the Democratic Party is utterly rancid and antithetical to decent government. Street-level Democrats are happy with this. This will not end well.

  2. Since white supremacists are invading the lib protests and looting and burning, why are the libs creating bail funds all over the USA for them ?

    1. Proof, please. Seriously. Not trying to demean or degrade your commentary. Please provide link to proof.

      1. “Facebook says it has removed nearly 200 social media accounts linked to white supremacy groups planning to rally members to show up at protests over police killings of black people _ in some cases with weapons.”
        usnews.com/news/business/articles/2020-06-05/facebook-removes-nearly-200-accounts-tied-to-hate-groups

    2. A devastating point, I hadn’t heard before – one of those ‘hidden in plain sight’ things!

    3. ” why are the libs creating bail funds all over the USA for them ?

      Shak, this is what the left does whether it be in this country or another. They support violent people whether so-called ‘White racists’ or ‘black racists’. Violence and destruction is what they leave in their midst. Just look at the 20th century. Over 100 million murdered for political gain outside of war. That is what the DNC of today has to offer.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-four citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy-eight weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – There I was trying to be nice to you and you had to ruin it. Buddy, I know how the academic game is played. The article states a real problem, however it does not give us a solution. Do YOU have a solution?

    1. I like that they put “erroneous trials” in quotes. A trial that doesn’t produce the result you expect does produce a result and it is important to understand it. In Barry’s “The Great Influenza…” he mentions a lead researcher (forgot the name) who said “I thrive on failure’ but his ‘failures’ led to success. Koch, too, went through many ‘failures’ before reaching some of his goals. One of the best books on the history of science, “The Great Devonian Controversy” is fascinating for many reasons but one of those is how many blind alleys had to be explored before reaching anything like agreement. This subject is fascinating, but it is a bit of an odd departure from the principal themes of this thread.

  3. “With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far bank.”

    NBC crossed that line a long time ago for me. On Dateline oh so many years ago, they had a segment on how flammable the GM pickup truck was. So they staged an accident. To make sure the truck caught on fire, they put some incendiary devices in the gas tank. Sure enough the truck caught on fire. They forget to mention the incendiary devices on air. We found out about that later.

    Sorry NBC, you left “journalistic standards” a long time ago.

  4. JT (does this guy watch more TV than Trump?) :

    “The move continues a trend started by CNN in hiring Trump critics…”

    Yeah, Fox would never do something like that and as public utilities, they better have to stop, now!

    “Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring…”

    Name one. Please!

    Professional jealousy among media “legal analysts” is one thing, but don’t be so obvious JT. It’s very unbecoming.

    1. Weakest reply on this blog in weeks. A) “Oh, yeah? Fox, too!!” B) “Because I ignored the entire article except for one sentence, then that one sentence is indefensible.”

  5. Mr. Turley, your claim that “there never was credible evidence of any Russian collusion” is false. It is either astoundingly ignorant for you to claim this, or you are purposefully being dishonest.

    The Mueller Report identifies credible evidence of collusion. The SCO simply determined that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of conspiracy (which is a crime, whereas there is no crime called “collusion”) for indictments. And keep in mind that other lawyers disagree with that judgement and believe that there was probable cause for conspiracy indictments.

    As Rep. Schiff noted to Mueller when Mueller testified, “Your report laid out multiple offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign, the campaign’s acceptance of that help, and overt acts in furtherance of Russian help. To most Americans that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not.”

    Or consider this exchange from Mueller’s testimony which outlines some of the evidence of collusion that were found:

    [begin]
    Mr. Welch: And, in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation where, unless there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you wouldn’t make a charge, correct?
    Mr. Mueller: Generally, that’s the case.
    Mr. Welch: But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy.
    Mr. Mueller: Absolutely correct.
    Mr. Welch: And, in fact, I will go through some of the significant findings that your exhaustive investigation made. You found, as I understand it, that from May 2016 until the end of the campaign, campaign chairman Mr. Manafort gave private polling information to Russian agents, correct?
    Mr. Mueller: Correct.

    Mr. Welch: And your investigation found that, in June 2016, Donald Trump, Jr., made an arrangement to meet at Trump Tower, along with Jared Kushner and others, expecting to receive dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign, correct?
    Mr. Mueller: Correct.
    Mr. Welch: And you found in your investigation that, on July 27, candidate Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails, something that for the first time they did about 5 hours later, correct?
    Mr. Mueller: That’s correct.
    Mr. Welch: And you also found that, on August 2, Mr. Manafort met with a person tied to Russian intelligence, Mr. Kilimnik, and gave him internal campaign strategy, aware that Russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign, correct?
    Mr. Mueller: I’m not certain of the tie there.
    Mr. Welch: But the fact of that meeting you agree with?
    Mr. Mueller: The fact that the meeting took place is accurate.
    Mr. Welch: And your investigation, as I understand it, also found that, in late summer of 2016, the Trump campaign in fact devised its strategy and messaging around WikiLeaks releases of materials that were stolen from the Democratic National Committee, correct?

    Mr. Mueller: Yes.
    Mr. Welch: Yes. Thank you. And you also talked earlier about the finding in your investigation that, in September and October of 2016, Donald Trump, Jr., had email communications with WikiLeaks, now indicted, about releasing information damaging to the Clinton campaign, correct?
    Mr. Mueller: True.
    Mr. Welch: All right. So I understand you made the decision, a prosecutorial decision, that this would not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But I ask if you share my concern. And
    my concern is: Have we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns so that if any one of us running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the Presidency of the United States, aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities —
    Mr. Mueller: Well, I hope —
    Mr. Welch: — that — go ahead.
    Mr. Mueller: Well, I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.
    Mr. Welch: — and would, in fact, have the ability without fear of legal repercussion to meet with agents of that foreign entity hostile to the American election?
    Mr. Mueller: I’m sorry. What is the question?
    Mr. Welch: Is that an apprehension that you share with me?
    Mr. Mueller: Yes.
    Mr. Welch: And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia if they did this again. And as you stated earlier, as we sit here, they’re doing it now. Is that correct?
    Mr. Mueller: You’re absolutely right.
    [end transcript excerpt]

    1. OMG WHAT A MORON . The whole Mueller report is fabricated you idiot !!!!!!!!! It’s 100% bogus and illegal , work on developing a clue !!!!!!!!!!

      1. Chris, wake up!

        The Trump Tower meeting is a matter of historical record – it happened. It is also a fact that Trump himself made up the false cover story. Like Flynn, why lie if all innocent? The election was over.

      2. I dare you to *quote* even a single thing in the report that was “fabricated” or “illegal” and *provide evidence* that it was “fabricated” or “illegal.”

        But I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to do it.

    2. Commit, technically, since “collusion” is neither a legal term – and a term Mueller has explicitly said he did not investigate – and, like ugly and AH, subjective, one can claim it was not proven. So what. Anyone with eyes who’s not brainwashed can see that the Trump campaign encouraged Russian interference and that Russia engaged in it to the advantage of the Trump campaign – that is the judgement of Mueller, the FBI, and our intelligence services. Trump continues to make excuses for Russia – famously agreeing with Putin and against our intelligence services on a stage with Putin and has done nothing about securing our elections since. He also is a strategic asset – or useful idiot – for Putin’s goals regarding Europe and other influence in world affairs – see G7 efforts.

      1. Turley’s claim wasn’t about what was “proven.” It was about “credible evidence.”

        We can have credible evidence of things that aren’t crimes. In fact, most things that we have credible evidence for in the world aren’t crimes.

        There is quite a bit of credible evidence of Russian collusion.

            1. Commit– “What a surprise that you don’t present any evidence for your claim. /s”

              When did your delusion that you are a jury waiting for evidence first begin?

              1. Never.

                I think you’re smart enough to understand that people use evidence in lots of situations. In fact, I bet I could find an example of *you* asking for evidence, and I can certainly find examples of “friends” of yours here asking for evidence. But I doubt that you’d ask them the same thing in response.

                No surprise that you resort to insult and the fallacy of a loaded question with me.

                1. Giving evidence to trolls is like throwing fish to bait.

                  When are you going to start holding your breath until I give you evidence?

        1. I agree. My larger intended but also unstated point was the overuse of the term collusion, usually by Trumpsters, including JT, who should know better as a law professor.

          1. Check that!

            JT does know Trump was not cleared of collusion with the Russians, and his repeated use of the term is just more evidence of his being a Trump Asset.

      1. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to present credible evidence of it.

        You think they colluded with the Russians to elect Trump? LOL.

    3. ” Kilimnik insists that he has “no relation to the Russian or any other intelligence service.” According to a lengthy profile in The Atlantic, “insinuations” that Kilimnik has worked for Russian intelligence during his years in Ukraine “were never backed by more than a smattering of circumstantial evidence.” All of this has been lost on US media outlets, who routinely portray Kilimnik as a “Russian operative” or an “alleged Russian spy.” ”

      “The New York Times initially reported that Manafort instructed Kilimnik in the spring of 2016 to forward the polling data to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian tycoon to whom Manafort owed a reported $20 million. The Times also reported that “[m]ost of the data was public,” but that didn’t stop pundits from letting their imaginations run wild. ”

      “The fervent speculation suffered a setback when it was revealed that the polling data was not intended to be passed to Deripaska or any other wealthy Russian. The New York Times corrected its story to inform us that Manafort actually wanted the polling data sent to two Ukrainian tycoons, Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. That correction came long after viral tweets and articles from liberal outlets amplified the Times’ initial false claim about Deripaska. Most egregiously, New York magazine’s Chait doubled down on the initial error by incorrectly claiming that the Times was now reporting that Manafort’s intended recipient was “different Russian oligarchs.” For his part, Akhmetov says he “never requested nor received any polling data or any other information about the 2016 US elections” from Manafort or Kilimnik. ”

      That two Ukrainian tycoons were confused with a Russian one reflects a broader error that has transmuted Manafort’s business dealings in Ukraine into grounds for a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Because Manafort worked for Ukraine’s Russia-aligned Party of Regions, it is widely presumed that he was doing the Kremlin’s bidding.

      ” But internal documents and court testimony underscore that Manafort tried to push his client, then–Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to enter the European Union and turn away from Russia.”

      LAUGHING at libs again. Liars, fools, and false inuuendo, one and the same.

      Oh, and it’s your far left rag… whiner.

      RUSSIA BOY AGAINST RUSSIA, THE DIM DEMS DEMENTED MINDS

      “President Viktor Yanukovych, to enter the European Union and turn away from Russia. As Manafort’s former partner and current special-counsel witness Rick Gates testified in August, Manafort crafted “the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union,” in the lead-up to the 2013-2014 Euromaidan crisis. The aims, Manafort explained in several memos, were to “[encourage] EU integration with Ukraine” so that the latter does not “fall to Russia,” and “reinforce the key geopolitical messaging of how ‘Europe and the U.S. should not risk losing Ukraine to Russia.’” As his strategy got underway, Manafort stressed to colleagues—including Kilimnik—the importance of promoting the “constant actions taken by the Govt of Ukraine to comply with Western demands” and “the changes made to comply with the EU Association Agreement,” the very agreement that Russia opposed. ”

      OHH…. TOOO BADDDDD LIBBIEEESS.

      https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/manafort-no-smoking-gun-collusion/

      Let’s face it, the dems are liars, from start to finish, liars.

      1. Estovir, why was Trump’s Campaign Manager working for a Putin ally??? Maybe that’s where confusion began?

        1. Manafort was said to be a kingmaker for a long time, a powerful person. Your Obama regime wanted to overthrow Ukraine and take it all under a western wing – what better way to do so than to work both sides of the Ukraine nation – that way, no matter whom is in charge, the west wins.

          It’s simple math- math even an idiot would comprehend and math that the USA’s enemies despise – we get both sides of the equation so we win no matter what.

          DUH.

          Seth, learn about power plays, or you’ll never become the powerful person you dream to be.
          Laughing.

  6. No doubt Turley previously objected to CNN hiring Kayleigh McEnany for similar reasons. /s

    1. enigma – I don’t know about JT, but I complained about Fuhrman. I thought he was a bad hire.

            1. enigma – which program is using him? I don’t watch Fox in real time. I sometimes will watch a particular program on YT.

                1. enigma – admit it, LeBron is better at dribbling than social commentary. Did he actually graduate from high school or was he just recruited out of high school? I have heard him talk and English is not his first language.

                    1. I spent much of several summers in NYC, working at the US Open Tennis and one year at the Goodwill Games. We had hundreds of workers, all of whom spoke good English, many were multi-lingual (though I don’t count Spanglish). 99% of them including recent immigrants have mastered English more than Trump, that includes spelling.

                    2. enigma – do you know that Trump misspells on purpose? When his misspells, the press jumps all over the misspelling, but they have to put out the entire Tweet. Win-win for Trump. 🙂

                    3. enigma – there have been advertising campaigns where there have been purposeful mistakes to gain attention. Trump is a saleman and he has a great ad team behind him.

                    4. Enigma, Somehow, the way Trump speaks has led him to be a television star, a branding star, a real estate star and President. Did you ever think it is your problem not his? We listen to you and what we hear is whining, victim hood and race baiting.

                  1. Paul, you don’t have to agree with LeBron to admire his intelligence and character which is obvious. I don’t have to agree with Drew Breeze to recognize his.

                    1. Anon – I think LeBron is a great BB player, however there is nothing that points to his intelligence being superior.

                    2. Book– “you don’t have to agree with LeBron to admire his intelligence”

                      When did you admimister the IQ test. You seem to know a lot about him. Please share.

                2. enigma……..Ah, LeBron, with all of those millions $$$ made because he’s a jock thug, and he’s still dumb as dirt.
                  Even his mother didn’t want him.

                    1. enigma………oh, I see you’re using the age-old, but failed, tactic of inferring that because I am white I am racist.
                      Assuming who and what I am by the color of my skin is a fine example of racism. Critical thinking could fix that for ya……but til then, you’re intellectually lazy.

                    2. “Ah, LeBron, with all of those millions $$$ made because he’s a jock thug, and he’s still dumb as dirt.
                      Even his mother didn’t want him.”

                      Not my words.

                    3. You’re a racist because it was you who suggested his being black is why Cindy called LeBron a thug.

                    4. Neither has anyone else.

                      You did. Clear as day. besides being black. Is it her duty to correct your racist assumption that Lebron is considered a thug because he is black? Why bother.

                    5. I would have suggested his criminal record but he has none. His propensity for violence? Theft? Brutality? He did start a school and is putting people thru college. I’m sorry but there was only one reason that came to mind and I was hoping she proved me wrong. Didn’t happen as of yet. I’m keeping hope alive. The most racist thing you can apparently recognize is when someone points it out. #Blinders

                    6. I’m keeping the racism alive.

                      FIFY

                      Without it, your own blog is kaput. The foundation of your belief system is dead. And without it alive, you are forced to consider alternative theories as to why so many otherwise capable citizens are stuck in a destructive death spiral.

                    7. OLLY – I called MS-13 thugs, does that make me racist? Pretty sure they are not black.

                    8. Lebron is one of the two greatest players in the history of the game. His stats in any given game are stacked. Points, rebounds, assists, insanely skilled defensive plays. And he basically plays as a point guard at the 4 spot, something pulled off by, let’s see, basically on one else in the history of the game.

                      At least twice he’s put the national team on his back and carried them to either a world championship or gold medal. He could’ve been a professional football player also if he’d so chosen.

                      He’s a burgeoning producer as well, producing a graduation show for this year’s graduating class and financed the building of a school in his hometown of Akron.

                      The right wingers on this blog aren’t fit to carry the man’s shoes.

                  1. Cindy, you racist pig, LeBron is in no way a thug and is very smart. He is a complete team player known for leadership, passing, and engaging other players on the offensive end – unlike Kobe – and is a clean player who almost never loses his temper or plays dirty in anyway.

                    For someone who has such unique athletic talents – 6′-8″, built like a linebacker, and can jump, shoot, and see the court – his decency and humility are outstanding and are part of what makes him the greatest player of this era.

                    One guesses your attack on his character is a reflection on yours.

                    1. Anonymous, I have joked to other sports fan on several occasions that if I had LeBron’s gifts and talent, I’d probably be a complete jerk. A joke, but most of us probably would be. The guy is rock steady and decent – and a phenomenal athlete.

                    2. “Anonymous, I have joked to other sports fan on several occasions that if I had LeBron’s gifts and talent, I’d probably be a complete jerk.”

                      Anon, you were able to accomplish that without have any talent at all.

                    3. By the Book– Stones/Glass houses.

                      You are the racist who explained that blacks are born with inherent disabilities but that they can jump high. George Wallace couldn’t have been clearer.

                      You are like the typical whites who condescend to blacks but are secretly smug about their own white superiority. Inevitably the mask falls from time to time as when you explained that blacks are born with inherent disabilities.

                    4. I don’t wear panties Cindy, so a physical impossibility.

                      Calling out racist idiots who also aren’t woman enough to admit being wrong – see our discussion yesterday – or decent enough to shut up at that point – is fun for me. Thanks for the ride.

                    5. I implied in one discussion that blacks are susceptible to some physical difficulties specific to their race. That is science and in no way reflects on their abilities or how they should be treated by fellow humans or the government. Young is too stupid to get that,

                      His imaginary construct of who I am or how i act toward fellow humans beyond pathetic.

                    6. By the Book– You said blacks are born with physical difficulties peculiar to their race in the context of affirmative action and, one would imagine, admission to university.

                      What inherent, inborn, disability do blacks have that would require they be given special preferences in intellectual institutions?

                      Book, you are essentially saying you believe they are born stupid. Racist. But that’s okay since you say they can jump high.

                      Do you have an affirmative action program in your own business, or do you prefer to make a profit?

                    7. Book — “I don’t wear panties…”

                      What then, Book, latex? Seth would love to visit, I am surr.

                    8. Young – I think I want 10 independent observers to sign off on this. 😉

                  2. “…he’s a jock thug, and he’s still dumb as dirt.
                    Even his mother didn’t want him.” -Cindy Bragg

                    Despicable. Ugly.

                    “…LeBron, with all of those millions $$$ made…” -Cindy, again

                    Cindy’s just jealous.

                    1. Cindy’s just an overt racist Anonymous. She reveals that regularly. Others here who are also are Squeaky and Young.with a few others right on the edge.

                    2. Paul, calling him a thug and dumb is, when all the evidence is he is very decent and intelligent human. Cindy says racist BS all the time here. She is a racist.

                    3. Anon – from the times I have heard him speak, he does not appear intelligent. Whether he is a thug or dumb are opinions. I used to know a lot of dumb jocks and color was not an indicator.

                    4. Anon – that is anatomically impossible. BTW, calling someone a thug is not racist.

                    5. Anonymous…..it’s my fault his mother didn’t want him? Gosh, I didn’t realize my powers of privileged whiteness were so well-developed! Dang! That’s impressive!

                    6. LeBron has no respect for our flag, our military, our country. He’s a disgrace to the memory of blacks who have lost their lives in combat.
                      He’s a ungrateful uneducated racist tool.

                    7. Paul, calling him a thug and dumb is, when all the evidence is he is very decent and intelligent human.

                      There’s scant evidence he’s notably intelligent or notably decent. That’s not what he gets paid for. The one indicator that suggests he might be above-the-median in re the latter quality is that he’s only been married once, he married someone he’d known for about 12 years, and all of his children were borne by his current wife.

                    8. Right wingers, please, at least have your grammar and spelling correct when you attempt to criticize people for lack of intelligence and education. Otherwise you make yourselves a laughingstock. Not that I mind. It’s truly entertaining in a sort of surrealist theater kind of way. But just a heads up.

      1. I point out hyprocrisy, you still haven’t come up with an answer as to why you called LeBron a thug? I spend time here to get other points of view and offer my input. I grew up loving the law, my favorite television show was, “The Paper Chase.” Other favorites were, “The FBI”, and all the cop shows, along with “Combat.” Real life intervened and the love of propaganda faded, I come here where propanda is still real, out of a sense of nostalgia I guess.

        1. Enig,

          The reason why you, BTB & Le Bron are Thug Racccissst is that among others you & BTB are defending Thug Racist Lebron who recently, along with Nike, sided with the Phk’in Commie China Govt W/Dr Fauci/Bill Gates, that just Murdered over 100K Americans with their Wuhan Flu Bio Weapon!!!!!

          Le Bron, ie: You/BTB sided with the Commie Authoritarians against the free people of the Hong Kong, Taiwan, USA, & free people everywhere.

          Move to China!

            1. “These stressful times are exposing the unstable among us.”

              Enigma, that is true and they are rioting in the street.

                1. Enigma, I don’t deny that all the rioting and violence comes from one group even though most of it does. There are anarchists, white supremecists, black supremecits, Asian supremecists, those that call them selves right wing but mostly believe in more government and more social programs. Yes there are a large group of crazies out there with all diffent ideologies.

                  But, who is pumping up the violence? The left wing news media and left wing mayors and governors. Why aren’t the non violent protesters separating themselves from the violent ones? Why aren’t the police helping separate the non violent from the violent?

                  We both agree that violence is not an answer, but I don’t hear you proposing anything to stop the violence. We virtually all agree that what happened to Floyd was terrible and that the police involved should pay big time. We agree police sometimes overstep their boundaries but that is true with all large groups. On the whole the most needy need the police the most.

                  When a policemen seems to have overstepped his boundaries, don’t make the situation worse. Let it be and then take it to the precinct captain. Police are human and subject to mistakes. I’m all for correcting mistakes. Don’t call this a racist nation. We all have our biases but America in general is one of the least racist places and since the civil war has misspent trillions of dollars to rectify all sorts of problems.

                  My family is not considered to be of one race (because according to you we aren’t) nor do we all come from one area of the globe. Many in my family some never known and some known paid a far higher price than you, your parents and likely your grandparents paid. Its a miracle that my wife was ever born. Your victimhood does nothing to help the people you call your own. They are not yours and they certainly aren’t yours to play with and manipulate. You, having had all the benefits, should be ashamed. I’m a lot closer to death and destruction in my family than you are with yours. Most of mine is dead.

                2. HYPOCRISY WATCH: minority Dallas PD cops kneeling on uncooperative white suspect, killing him. Nobody claims racism. No marches. No riots. No wall-to-wall media coverage …@paulsperry

                1. She called the man a jock thug. You are the one assuming it’s because he is black. That’s racist and you just will never admit you are one.

                  1. The term “thug” had a connotation before she used it. There is no valid reason for its use. Fortunately for Cindy, she has no need to explain as long as she has apologists and defenders like yourself. You never think to question the motives behind a Cindy, or George, or Squeeky, they’re all welcome here to say what they please, while you allow it.

                    1. Enigma, you should listen to yourself. You are the one that increases racism. You question everyone elses motives. Start questioning your own. Your continuous victimhood is sickening.

                      Think about David Dorn. He was a real man with a real family and he is dead because of attitudes like yours. He was black and now he is dead killed by the violence created by people like you.

                    2. The term thug has a very old origin, predating your modern interpretation. Cindy’s body of work on this blog gives no indication of racism. Yours however is predominantly about racism. That’s your prism and it hamstrings what would otherwise be rational dialogue. You and others alleging racism have worn it out to a point it has become meaningless.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee

                    3. “The charge of racism & institutional racism has…morphed into an orthodoxy like communism. Are you a supporter of the Party or not?

                      And there is no tolerance for anyone who disagrees or challenges the assumption,”—civil rights veteran Bob Woodson

                2. enigma – again, I have called MS-13 thugs and they are not black. Are you presuming all thugs are black? And on the other hand, if a man is black and a thug is he free from being called out as a thug?

                  1. All thugs are not black, but when any/every black man is called a thug without a reason, that’s something different entirely. A block thug can be called a thing, when good men are called thugs, it makes whatever happens to them excusable. In this thread I’ve been called a thug, and a racist, while racist words of others are defended. What am I missing?
                    BTW, do you call Boogaloo Boys thugs and Proud Boys and the Klan, or is their behavior somehow different? “Don’t allow them to blame others.” – Donald Trump

                    1. “All thugs are not black.” True.

                      All Republicans are not racists. Also true.

                      All Democrats are not NOT racists. Also true.

                      But Democrat leaders and their media want YOU to believe Republicans are racist so that you continue to dutifully vote Democrat. You are the pawn in the Democrat power grab. Don’t delude yourself.

                    2. enigma – is there anyone on here that you care about that has called you a racist?

                    3. I can’t think of an example. Me being singled out as a racist is almost humorous frankly, when there is so much to behold from others. I'[ve gotten accustomed to the fact that racist behavior here is not only tolerated and excused… it’s welcome. Now there are some people here that would disappoint me, but life would go on. When I’m called a racist by people that couldn’t identify a racist if they stumbled across one, Im not bothered.

                3. Recall what Obama said during Freddie Gray riots in Baltimore:

                  “Still, the president lashed into the rioters who torched buildings and looted businesses in Baltimore a day earlier, calling them ​“criminals ​and thugs” who were destroying their own communities.

                  ​“That is not a protest. It is not a statement. It’s people, a handful of people, taking advantage of a situation for their own purposes — and they need to be treated as criminals,” Obama said from the White House.”

                  https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-criminals-and-thugs/

        2. Enigma– Forget basketball for a moment. Do you see any hypocrisy in Book’s cant about not being racist coupled with his assertion that science shows that blacks are born with inherent disabilities but can jump well (back to basketball after all)?

      2. My question to enigma has been why is he still in the United States, not just on this blog. I can not figure out why he has not moved to a Black-run paradise somewhere in Africa. He has the money and the jobs skills. He could make a fortune over there, and there wouldn’t be none of that Institutionalized Racism he is always having to live in fear of. And no cops pulling him over because of his color.

        Trust me, if things get bad enough here, I would move to a European country.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky– Didn’t you know all the whites in Europe are moving to Africa to escape institutional racism? All the loaded boats coming to Europe are just to bring over return transportation.

          If everone woke up to see all the whites lived in Africa and all the blacks lived in Europe the flow of blacks would be back to Africa.

          Meanwhile 3 Chinese were just murdered in the Dark Continent. Now that the Chinese are there in great numbers they and the locals are discovering they don’t like each other very much.

  7. I hate Trump, but I hate more to think what this country would look like if he had not been elected. AG Barr came on board to save the Republic.

    1. Hey Craig work on developing a clue will you please ?

      It is now clear that the inner circle of the Obama White House, including the former President himself, were coordinators of the entire Russia hoax from inception through the Mueller inquisition. From the start all the way up to the coming indictments.

      A coordinated conspiracy run from the Obama White House
      That all elements of the senior departments of the major agencies of the United States Government were illegally weaponized to destroy a political opponent. A coordinated assault on the constitution and the Republic.

      To sabotage an incoming President. Overthrow the government of the United States. Abuse their authorities to openly frame, smear and seek the destruction and criminal indictment of a duly elected President using the evidence they themselves fabricated.

      Clapper said that everything he and John Brennan had done prior to and during the 2016 election was explicitly on Barack Obama’s orders.

      1. Chris, last night Trump abruptly announced that was reducing NATO troops in Germany as a favor to Putin.

        But we’re supposed to think The Mueller Probe was a hoax??

        What a joke you are!

        1. Think whatever MSNBC tells you to think, as you clearly dutifully do. And yes, the TRUTH is the Mueller Probe was a hoax. I don’t hear Robert S. Mueller out vehemently defending his report or his investigators, do you? What I do hear is that some of Mueller’s corrupt team have been referred for criminal indictments. Let’s see what happens.

  8. You will forgive me if I rip a page out of the Trump playbook and mindlessly call the current Senate investigation into Crossfire Hurricane a “witch hunt.” How do you like that?? Get used to the taste of your medicine…. Hoax … Witch Hunt!

      1. As deluded as you are, honest to god, I pity you Trumpists. You have the misfortune of defending his lies as more and more conservatives disown him. You made a very bad bet, and it is your sad lot that you will take this stigma to your grave. Even in death, you won’t escape it. Once a Trumpist, always a Trumpist… good luck with that!

          1. Paul– That’s wonderful! I took Greek but it doesn’t stick if you don’t keep it up. I regret that my reading in Greek is trivial compared to yours. I still have my text and the translator’s New Testament, Xenophon and the Illiad to hand, but I usually allow myself to be distracted before I pick them up. More the shame. Have you visited Greece?

            1. Young – everything I read was in translation, so I was at the mercy of the translator.

              1. I misunderstood. Still great literature and you likely came away with more than I did trying to translate Greek myself. Oddly, though, it took reading the first part of John in the originall Greek to be stunned by the beauty of expression and that awareness carried back to reading it again in the King James version.

                1. Young – I still have PTSD flashbacks from trying to translate things in Latin, which I did take.

            1. Cindy Bragg – thanks for the kind thoughts. He had a medical monitor and wasn’t even able to use that, so it was very fast. He lived is St. Louis area, so we are going to Zoom the funeral.;

              1. Paul C……..I know you’re grateful for Zoom. I think that area of the country is beautiful……especially the little towns along the Mississippi.

  9. I do not think this is going to help their case to get Biden elected. However, this time she is openly working with the MSM.

  10. don`t say much for the legal team at n.b.c. and m.s.n.b.c.. this woman doesn`t know the meaning of the word legal.

    1. But she seems experienced at breaking the law along with her marriage vows…perfect fit for NBC.

        1. Yeah, like Kennedy and Clinton. Still can’t forget Clinton’s cigar trick. Is there a name for that particular deviancy? I thought nicotine was bad for you. At least there was no inhaling, that was important to Clinton.

Leave a Reply