Your dodge is noted.

Are you saying that ccn has more resources at its disposal than THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
CNN only has a total net worth of 5 billion, trump has more resources as an individual than they do as a corporation.

How is not knowing about something they could not possibly know about a lack of ethics?
And how is it not a lack of ethics if trump does it?

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Feb 18 2020 08:16pm

What happens when.
You are cult member

trump's closest handpicked advisors being charged with criminal behaviour connected to his campaign's connections with russia? just a 'poor judge of character - poor donnie couldn't possibly have known, let alone wanted them to do those things'. are cultists seriously not embarrassed to make such moronic claims? i mean, they can't possibly believe that to be true, can they?

I'd like to see if there's anyone who can really rationalize Chris Murphy's position that he has the right as a member of congress to meet with Iranians and conduct foreign policy in opposition to the administration.
I think its really made more difficult by the part that Chris Murphy himself already hypocritically denounced Michael Flynn meeting with Russia at the behest of an elected administration, calling his meeting dangerous and unlawful.
Chris Murphy was probably the most vocal senator calling for an investigation into Flynn and explicitly citing the Logan Act at the time.

In Chris Murphy's own words:
“Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy, even during a transition period, may be illegal and must be taken seriously”

Every previous administration already established that its kosher for transition officials to meet with their counterparts and conduct foreign policy, and Obama's own state department during the transition explicitly said there's nothing inappropriate about the incoming administration conducting foreign affairs; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHmQBrAe1o8 - they'd be massive hypocrites if they didn't say that, because Obama officials met with their counterparts during his transition. This got a bit more complicated when Obama took the unprecedented step of opposing the incoming administration's foreign policy and spiking it preemptively with radical measures Obama wasn't willing to do when he was in office or Hillary the expected successor, and Trump took the unprecedented step of locking horns with an outgoing president over foreign policy and working to oppose it. The whole debacle unfolded in some uncharted grey area. An area in my opinion simply beyond legal jurisdiction and poisonous to democracy, a clear example of bad faith and pettiness, but a grey area that hopefully set no precedents and can be ignored as a hiccup.

The ability of senators to conduct foreign policy is another one of those grey areas. They've routinely met with foreign dignitaries and pressured them for years, that's not new, but it was always done informally, without a clearly exerted constitutional prerogative. And they generally avoid talking to adversaries and opposing the administration, and it became significant scandals when they actually did. Like Ted Kennedy talking to the soviets. With all the rumblings about the Logan Act and treason and whatnot. Chris Murphy is bucking that trend by plunging it face first and declare he has an official power to meet with adversaries, conduct foreign policy and oppose the executive administration. Despite claiming the grey area resolved firmly against Michael Flynn and citing the Logan Act against him, he's now hypocritically claiming the grey area resolves firmly behind himself and that the Logan Act would be inapplicable.

Lets say hypothetically the administration came out and took a step like declaring travel restrictions on any US citizens attempting to conduct unauthorized foreign policy with Iran.
That would be a fun showdown

This post was edited by Goomshill on Feb 19 2020 06:39am

tl;dr = "news source did a bad, so now = bad forever. even stories unrelated to the bad"

gotcha.

CNN, Fox, etc all have a bias, but they're still news organizations that present mostly factual info. the slant is a small part of any article they write, shoehorned in lines of commentary. attacking sources is for people who are afraid 10% of an article will sway them from 90% of the facts. its for dumb people in short. impressionable idiots. and in general doing it in pard is unproductive and low hanging fruit. challenge the facts in an article directly, or dont. but ill continue to call anyone who does this a hack whether its fox or cnn.

also thought experiment:
how far does this ability of senators to conduct foreign policy in opposition to the president stand?

Lets say we were formally at war with Nazi Germany and a Nazi-sympathizing US senator flew to Berlin and met with Hitler and told him to oppose FDR and negotiated with him through an opposing track.
Now, a superficial response would be to say that's treason punishable by death. But lets remember: That's absolutely within the lawful powers of the executive to conduct foreign policy. That's how negotiate peace treaties and end wars. The president and his delegates are authorized to meet with our adversaries even in times of war, whether its to issue ultimatums demanding their surrender or to pay tribute and buy the release of hostages- the barbary wars come to mind.
By that same token, why shouldn't a "co-equal" branch of government that has declare it has the power to conduct foreign policy, have authorization to meet with our adversaries and oppose the administration? If we're going to take Chris Murphy's interpretation of congressional powers as he's stated it, then that's not an absurdity, that would be lawful foreign policy conducted by an elected member of congress. If he has that power, it can't be treason, it can't be a violation of the logan act.

wouldn't a declaration of war by the legislature pretty much wipe out involvement with those we're at war with?

we could of course iron out the legal loopholes, but i dont see congress declaring war then one congressmen flying to the country we just declared war on. which is what often times happens when u take an example to it's furthest conclusion, you end up with a logical inconsistency that's legally possible but not even remotely likely in reality.

the media and the (D)s said we were at war with Iran after Soleimani was taken out though

Besides "trump also bad" what exactly is the point of the comparison? I keep asking this question and no ones answering it.

Does Trump being a bad judge of character and having criminals around him somehow validate CNN doing so? I mean if that's your point own up to it, otherwise explain it?