Greta Investigates … 10 Years Later, The Death and Disappearance of Natalee Holloway in Aruba … However, Monkeys Know that Joran van der Sloot Lies
On Saturday night Greta Van Susteran did a 10 year later review of the death and disappearance of Natalee Holloway on Aruba. Although there was not a lot of new material, Greta Investigates nicely summarized the case, while also having Beth Holloway and some of Natalee’s friends from that fateful trip to Aruba in 2005 talk about their lives, feelings and memories of Natalee. Its ten years later and Natalee’s friends have graduated college and are on with their lives. Sadly that is something that Natalee Holloway was never allowed to do because of a terrible chance encounter with Joran Van der Sloot on her final night in the island of Aruba. However, it seems to hardly have been a chance encounter after all.
On the 10-year anniversary of Natalee Holloway’s disappearance, “Greta Investigates” takes a new look at the teenager’s last days while on a high school graduation trip on the Caribbean island of Aruba.
Greta Van Susteren traveled to the island with Natalee’s mother Beth Holloway to investigate the bizarre twists and countless lies that have plagued this mysterious case from the start.
And you’ll learn how the teen’s suspected killer, Joran van der Sloot, was almost caught in an FBI sting operation, but instead slipped out of Aruba and fled to Peru. He is currently serving a 28-year prison sentence for killing college student Stephany Flores on the 5-year anniversary of Natalee’s disappearance.
However, when many on Aruba defended Joran Van der Sloot, an Aruba LE that was at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. An American media that was all too often more worried about the next big salacious story rather than investigative journalism as the Natalee Holloway story was the missing person case heard round the world. At times it felt like there were more media folks in Aruba than tourists. However, throughout the search for Natalee Holloway and the obstacles put up by the Aruba legal system, the police, the tourism board, the Van der Sloot family and those looking to protect Joran … Scared Monkeys knew from the beginning that Joran Van der Sloot was lying. Although Greta has done fine work over the years and continues to keep the case in the spot light to hopefully one day provide Justice for Natalee, we at Scared monkeys were never inclined to believe him. Joran Van der Sloot was a pathological liar and a sociopath.
VIDEO – Scared Monkeys Video Joran Van der Sloot Lies (Klaas)
This is what happens when you have a liberal media that does not punish their own for liberal media bias …
In the wake of the media bias scandal where ABC’s George Stephanopoulos failed to make it known that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and at the same time running cover for the Clinton Foundation amidst its own scandal of taking foreign money as she was Secretary of State, Georgy Porgy decided to apologize for his actions. If you call it an apology. But it was not just that George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House political operative, donated money to the Clinton Foundation, Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash and went after the author claiming that he was bias.
But check out the VIDEO below and the less than sincere apology. Listen to his snarky and elitist tone when he says, “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” In his effort to make an apology he basically says, but look at me, I am great, because even though I made these donations to save the word, no the planet … I should have gone the extra mile. PLEASE GEORGY, SPARE US THE DRAMA. You knew damn well, being a former Clinton operative and a political news correspondent that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. Would it really have been that difficult to do some research and investigation to find what were the best charities for Aids, helping children or the environment, if you were actually being sincere? After all, you are supposed to be some kind of correspondent for the media, is it that difficult to do a Google search of best charities?
But when you have a news organization like ABC News defending such actions of bias and a lack of transparency to protect their own agenda of liberal bias in the media, what would one expect from an ex-Clintonista but a hollow apology.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.
Welcome to the Corrupt Democrat Media Complex … ABC News Host George Stephanopoulos Caught in a Total Conflict of Interest and Bias News Event
DON’T EVER TRUST THE LIBERAL MSM … EVER!!!
It has been known for years that the MSM was bias to the LEFT and the Democrat party; however, many said that was just the GOP complaining and having sour grapes. One look at the recent George Stephanopoulos conflict of interest just shows one example of the ongoing media bias and a media that is so slanted to the LEFT that they cannot even admit to their bias because the Democrat party, liberals and the media is so incestuous, it is shameful, let alone dishonest, corrupt and unethical.
It is bad enough that George Stephanopoulos, who rose to prominence as the communications director for the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and then becoming White House Communications Director for Clinton, became a correspondent for ABC News and co-anchor of ABC News’ Good Morning America. Yea, no bias there eh? Now we learn that he is still giving money to the Clinton’s while trying to pass himself off as a journalist. Can you imagine, this man gets paid $8 million a year to spew liberal lies and talking points to the masses and pass them off as objective journalism.
Check out the VIDEO below of a bought and paid for Stephanopoulos defending Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and its questionable donations, all the while George Stephanopoulos was donating to the very foundation. SERIOUSLY, HOW CORRUPT AND UNETHICAL DOES THE MEDIA HAVE TO BE FOR SOMEONE TO BE FIRED. Because Georgie is a darling of the media and ABC, the network backed his obvious conflict of interest and stood behind this unethical and devious individual. Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash. Stephanopoulos tried to discredit Schweitzer saying during the interview, the Democrats have said this this is an indication that you are partisan, they say you used to work for President Bush as a speech writer, your funded by the Koch brothers, how do you respond to that?” REALLY GEORGE … and you worked for who and gave $75,000 to who?
Washington Free Beacon:
ABC news host George Stephanopoulos admitted Thursday he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and did not disclose this conflict of interest to viewers before interviewing the author of a book critical of the foundation’s foreign donors and influence over Hillary Clinton at the State Department.
Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton communications aide, interviewed Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer on the April 26 edition of This Week, where he pushed back against his reporting and Schweizer himself, repeating Democratic attacks that he had a “partisan interest” in disparaging the Clintons.
“They say you used to work for President Bush as a speech writer. You are funded by the Koch brothers,” he said. “How do you respond to that?”
“As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors,” he asked later. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. An independent government ethics expert at the Sunlight Foundation Bill Allison wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun. No evidence that the changed policy based on donations to the foundation. No smoking gun.’ Is there a smoking gun?”
BUSTED … ABC News George Stephanopoulos Failed to Disclose $50K Donation to Clinton Foundation While Attacking Anti-Clinton Author Peter Schweitzer and Donations to the Clinton Foundations (Update: He Gave $75K)
CAN YOU SAY MEDIA BIAS … WHY SHOULD ANYONE THINK STEPHANOPOULOS HAS ANY INTEGRITY, HE CAME FROM THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE.
As reported at the Washington Free Bacon, ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos donated $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years. The contribution is publicly available information, but the host had not previously disclosed it to ABC viewers, despite taking part in on-air discussions about the Clinton Foundation and its controversial relationship with foreign donors. Oops, no media bias here or conflict of interest. How on earth does some one not disclose that they have a conflict of interest when discussing a news story like the funny money that funneled through the Clinton Foundation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the United States? Especially when Stephanopoulos recently tried to discredit author Peter Schweitzer on the air about his book Clinton Cash which discusses questionable political donations to the Clinton Foundation. Um, those very donations that ‘Stephelupagus’ had made himself. And not a word of, oh by the way, or in full disclosure, I am a Clinton hack.
Really, it was an honest mistake to knowingly not disclose this information when during the interview below Stephanopoulos references Peter Schweitzer disclosed in his book. Something George did not. Honest mistake my butt. Watch the VIDEO below of the contentious interview between Stephanopoulos and Peter Schweitzer and George’s defense of the Clinton’s, rather than a fair and balanced interview.
Correction, he gave them $75,000.
ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on Thursday acknowledged donating $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, a contribution he did not disclose during recent broadcasts on the Clinton Cash controversy.
The ex-political adviser for former President Clinton gave $25,000 a year in 2012, 2013 and 2014, according to CNN Money.
ABC initially reported Stephanopoulos had donated $50,000, but the anchor forgot his $25,000 gift in 2012, bringing his total donations to $75,000 over three years.
“I made charitable donations to the foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply,” Stephanopoulos said in a statement.
“I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record,” he said.
“However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation,” he added.
Stephanopoulos did not reveal his past donations despite discussing the foundation’s financial dealings in news broadcasts late last month.
George Stephanopoulos has ZERO credibility. The Clinton Foundation website lists Stephanopoulos as a 2014 grantee who gave between $50,001 and $100,000 total as of that year.
ABC News stands behind their darling George and says it was an honest mistake. Give me a break, WHEN IT COMES TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CLINTON’S THE WORD “HONEST” CAN NEVER BE USED!
I am so sorry if I do not believe your apology you made only after you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
The chief anchor of ABC News offered a brief mea culpa to viewers on the network’s top-ranked morning program over gifts he made to the non-profit Clinton Foundation but failed to disclose even as he covered topics on air related to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
“I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict” by noting the donations on air, Stephanopoulos said Friday morning, about 18 minutes into the broadcast of “Good Morning America.”
ABC News policy, according to a person familiar with the situation, allows its journalists to make donations to charities. Viewers, however, may not make that distinction, and the anchor’s actions have already invited criticism from political aficionados who wonder if he can interview Republican political candidates now that his contributions to a charitable organization run by leading Democrats is known.
ABC News has said it supports the anchor, calling his omission “an honest mistake.”
University of Virginia Dean Sues Rolling Stone Magazine for ‘False’ Portrayal & Defamation Lawsuit in Retracted Rape Story
YOU KNEW THIS ONE WAS COMING, ALSO THE FRAT WILL MOST LIKELY DO THE SAME …
UVA to sue Rolling Stone magazine for defamation. I am generally not a law-suit happy individual; however, this one was a no-brainer. Following the completely irresponsible reporting by Rolling Stone, A Rape on Campus, and the subsequent retracting of the story and apology after the story fell apart, University of Virginia associate dean of students filed a multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine Tuesday. GOOD!!! With what Rolling Stone did, might just be the poster-child of cases for defamation.
Rolling Stone reported, A Rape on Ca,pus, What went wrong. Many people have been asking since the magazine retracted their story, Rolling Stone journalism … what went wrong?
A University of Virginia associate dean of students filed a multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit against Rolling Stone magazine Tuesday, alleging that it portrayed her as callous and indifferent to allegations of sexual assault on campus and made her the university’s “chief villain” in a now-debunked article about a fraternity gang rape.
Nicole Eramo is seeking more than $7.5 million in damages from Rolling Stone; its parent company, Wenner Media; and Sabrina Rubin Erdely, the investigative journalist who wrote the explosive account of sexual assault on the campus in Charlottesville. The magazine retracted the article after news organizations and the Columbia University journalism school found serious flaws in it.
Eramo, who is the university’s chief administrator dealing with sexual assaults, argues in the lawsuit that the article destroyed her credibility, permanently damaged her reputation and caused her emotional distress. She assailed the account as containing numerous falsehoods that the magazine could have avoided if it had worked to verify the story of its main subject, a student named Jackie who alleged she was gang-raped in 2012 and that the university mishandled her case.
Read the full complaint HERE.
Uber-Leftist Bill Maher Defends Free Speech … “This is America, Do We Not Have the Right to Draw Whatever We Want?” (VIDEO)
FREE SPEECH MAKES STRANGE BED FELLOWS … UBER-LEFTIST BILL MAHER COMES TO THE DEFENSE OF PAM GELLAR.
Like him or hate him, agree with him or not, Bill Maher is 100% consistent and correct when t comes to radical Islam and their assault on our rights like freedom of speech. On his latest HBO show, ‘Real Time‘ with Bill Maher, he takes on the recent shooting in Garland, TX where two radical Islamist jihadist were shot dead by a Garland police officer as they tried to attack the “draw the Prophet Mohammad’ event.
Bill Maher starts out by saying, “this is America, do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?” Maher is 100% correct. Maher also mentioned the writers group, PEN, that recently gave Charlie Hebdo an award for courage. However, over 200 writers, including Garry Tradeau of Doonesbury comic fame, objected to the giving of the award, of which Maher thought was pretty crazy. I would have to agree, imagine a media that condemns other media for practicing free speech only because certain elitists in the media think their brand of free speech is the only allowed free speech? Does that not reek of censorship?
Maher reads Tradeau’s writings, “By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world. Then Bill Maher came out with the money line that all need to take a long hard look at. Maher says, “so this assumes that we just have to accept that Muslims are unable to control themselves the way we would ask everyone else in the world. To me that’s bigotry. That’s the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Maher further opines, “We don’t ask anyone else in the world
MAHER GOT THAT RIGHT.
Then we are presented with typical stupidity and asinine comment that represents today’s PC liberalism of squishiness from MSNBC’s Alex Wagne who says ,”isn’t the whole point of free speech not to judge people based on what people say”? What turnip truck did this lib fall off of? But like a typical liberal, you cant offend and judge people. Panelist Will Cain would slap her down saying, “no that is definitely not the role of free speech, you judge, you just don’t censor”. I thought for one second Cain was going to use the old SNL line from the classic Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin Point-Counterpoint skit, “
Jane Alex, you ignorant slut”.
Cain then went on to make a point that should be a wake up call to all of the media as he said, “You don’t just have a right to free speech, when someone’s position is, if you offend me, I will kill you, it becomes virtuous for you to offend that person. You need to offend that person. You need to shock that person out of that horrible position.” AMEN BROTHER!!! But instead, the cowardly MSM shrinks when it is their head on the line.
Maher brought up Charlie Hebdo and said he’s a little disturbed by the whole “soft bigotry of low expectations” when it comes to that magazine’s critics assuming that “Muslims aren’t able to control themselves.”
MSNBC’s Alex Wagner asked, “Isn’t the whole point of free speech not to judge people?” Cain shot back that when people threaten to kill just for expressing opinions, “it becomes virtuous to offend that person… [and] you need to shock them out of their horrible position.”
Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee said, “You’re talking about hatred!” Maher found that a little mind-boggling in a conversation about people who kill for free speech. He said everyone should be on the side of Muslims who just want to live their lives and don’t draw attention to people mocking their faith.
Wagner and Cain threw down over the appropriateness of the Charlie Hebdo award, with Wagner arguing that journalists who travel the world and put themselves in danger are “practicing courageous acts” moreso than cartoonists.
CNN’s Rachel Nichols, ESPN’s Michelle Beadle & USA Today writer Martin Rogers Media Credentials Denied by Mayweather’s Promotion Company … All 3 Have Been at the Forefront of Reporting in Mayweather’s History of Domestic Violence
YET ANOTHER REASON WHY I WOULD NEVER PAY FOR THIS FIGHT OE GIVE FLOYD MAYWEATHER A DIME OF MY MONEY …
Imagine that, boxing gets another black eye. Prior to the Mayeather-Pacquiao, three journalists, CNN’s Rachel Nichols, ESPN/HBO’s Michelle Beadle and USA Today writer Martin Rogers have all had their media credentials revoked from tonight’s fight by the Mayweather promotion team. What do all three have in common? They have all been critical and at the forefront of reporting on the domestic violence past of Floyd Mayweather. What class. Mayweather has been convicted 5 times for domestic violence.
What is truly sad, is that Mayweather’s history of abusing woman and history of domestic violence has not hurt the hype of this fight.
I so hope that Manny Pacquiao knocks Mayweather’s block off.
Whether Floyd Mayweather or his promotion company is/was/isn’t/wasn’t banning journalists from covering Saturday’s fight against Manny Pacquiao remains to be sorted out.
CNN’s Rachel Nichols and ESPN’s Michelle Beadle both said as much on Twitter on Saturday morning, only to have a Mayweather spokesperson dispute that and say both are credentialed and blaming the issue mostly to confusion. Beadle, for instance, never applied under ESPN and was part of a block from HBO, which is a business partner of Pacquiao’s.
As with everything in boxing, things are tribal and confusing. We’ll see what’s the truth eventually. Personally, I’m taking whatever Rachel Nichols, in particular, says to the bank.
Also uncertain is the fate of USA Today writer Martin Rogers, whose credential situation has likewise been up in the air this week, although there were procedural and deadline issues with his request.
All three have covered or commented on Mayweather’s lengthy history of domestic abuse allegations, including his two-month stint in the Clark County Detention Center in 2012. Rogers previously wrote for Yahoo Sports, where he, and the rest of the staff, wrote extensively about the issue.
Below is the Rachel Nichols interview with Floyd Mayweather on Domestic Violence
UPDATE I: Last minute back tracking by Mayweather promotions Team after negative press on media credentials being pulled.
Mayweather’s people say it was a misunderstand. BS!
Kelly Swanson, a media relations spokesperson for the Mayweather camp, denied that Nichols and Beadle has lost their credentials.
Later Saturday, Beadle said via Twitter that she was told Friday she was not credentialed and left Las Vegas. She said HBO was able to get her credential approved late Friday night.
Swanson told USA Today: “I’ll take it as a misunderstanding. But Rachel Nichols was never banned from the event. She’s been credentialed the whole time.”
She added: “We didn’t even know until late afternoon who was going to be in the arena. CNN received one seat in the arena, and it was up to them to pick who could go in the arena. We could not make that selection. We let those producers decide who they wanted in that seat. She’s always had a credential.”
OTL Discussion: Floyd Mayweather’s History of Domestic Violence
LEFTWING MEDIA HAS GONE TOO FAR THIS TIME … CNN’s Brooke Baldwin Blames Military Veterans for Baltimore Riots (Update: Apologizes on Twitter. Finally on TV)
LIBERALISM TRULY IS A MENTAL DISEASE … WELCOME TO THE DEMOCRAT-MEDIA COMPLEX.
While doing an interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) in the midst of the turmoil on the streets of Baltimore, CNN’s Brooke Baldwin had the audacity to blame military veterans for the Baltimore riots. WHAT? This liberal media-insanoid literally blamed vets coming home saying, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.” Really, you love them, I would hate to see if you didn’t love them what you would say. Welcome to the LEFT-wing media of today that does not report the news, but instead tries to pain a narrative that does not exist. Sorry, ESPN suspended foul-mouthed ESPN reporter Britt McHenry went off on a tirade on a impound lot employee, CNN should fire Brooke Baldwin for these false and ugly comments. But they won’t because this is the hate and bias that consumes liberal media outlets today.
Hmm, so what is Brooke Baldwin’s message, or should i say smear … Don’t hire vets because they are too unstable to be trusted? But don’t worry, she loves them.
After more than a year of CNN pouring gasoline all over America with hysterical, and oftentimes phony, stories of American racism, the left-wing network’s afternoon anchor Brooke Baldwin finally took it to the next level by blaming American veterans for the Baltimore riots.
In a pathetic suck-up interview with Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummins, Baldwin never once had the moral courage to ask the failed Baltimore City congressman if the left-wing policies ushered in by a half-century of a Democrat monopoly in Baltimore might have something to do with the city’s ills. Instead, she said of young military veterans who become police officers, “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”
The context was a discussion about increased training and retraining for the Baltimore police.
There’s no question Baldwin is hoping to launch a narrative with that smear.
UPDATE I: Brooke Baldwin apologized like a coward hiding behind her Twitter account. Sorry Brooke, you don’t get to make such inflammatory, hateful and defamatory comments like you did stereotyping our brave American vets on TV and then apologize on Twitter. What a brave soul you are. Get your butt on TV and apologize. Then I want you to go to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, she’s not that far away and apologize in person to wounded vets.
Twitter – BrookBaldwin@BrookeBCNN
CNN’s Brooke Baldwin this morning may have done the impossible: Deliver a mea culpa that the nation’s apology police cannot possibly puncture, dismantle, nitpick or otherwise trash.
Sweeping, tendentious nonsense. Baldwin offered no evidence to support her case that somehow battle-scarred veterans from recent wars were responsible for any of the policing problems in the country’s big cities, let alone in Baltimore. People on the Internet let her know of their disapproval. Baldwin’s first response was a bit weak:
That defense doesn’t work at CNN, which sells itself as a purveyor of straight-up journalism around the clock. So what if some hack “vocalized” a concern to Baldwin? Isn’t it her job to filter that concern, fact-check it and pat it down before “re-vocalizing” it?
Given some more time to think about it all, Baldwin this morning came around. Early this morning, she tweeted.
On CNN’s “New Day” program Baldwin said the following:
I made a mistake yesterday. We were in the middle of live TV, I was talking to a member of Congress, and I was recounting a story, a conversation I had had recently just referring to police. And I absolutely misspoke, I inartfully chose my words 100 percent and I just wish speaking to all of you this morning: I wholeheartedly retract what I said. And I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans, to you — this is just who I want to speak with this morning — I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform. And I wanted you to know that this morning, so to all of you, I owe a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry.
Sorry Brooke if I don’t believe a word of your apology. You meant every word you said, and that’s okay, just own it. You are a bed-wetting liberal who doesn’t know any better and repeats hateful BS. That’s okay, just say it.
EXIT QUESTION: Replace “VET” with “BLACKS” and does Brooke Baldwin have a job this morning?
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake Says Saturday We Gave Gray Protestors ‘Who Wish To Destroy Space To Do That’ … Monday, Total Anarchy and Riots Ensue as She Walks Back Her Comments
Want to know how things like in Baltimore happen, it comes from a complete lack of leadership. Talk about a green light to protesters.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said during a press conference on Saturday when tensions were on the rise … “we also gave “those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.”
Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said that while officials worked to protect protestors taking action over the death of Freddie Gray they also gave “those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.” During her press conference Saturday, Rawlings-Blake said that she worked with police to make sure they protected the protestors’ right to free speech, “ It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they (protestors) were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well,” Rawlings-Blake said.
On Monday Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake had complete amnesia as she says to reports that she never said such a thing and would never say anything like we are giving people space to destroy the city of Baltimore. HUH? She scolded the media and said that her words should not be twisted. DOUBLE HUH? Watch the VIDEO below. Sorry toots, you made the comment. Who are you going to believe, the mayors words or her backtracking? It is obvious that Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was acting in a PC manner and wanted to give the protesters and trouble makers all the room in the words because in her liberal mind was, if you let them get it out of their systems, it will stop. However, it exploded.
This was not the media twisting someones words, it was a politician who was in over their head and hasn’t a clue how to deal with the situation. Instead of leadership, she blames the media. This is what happens when ideology gets in the way of leadership.
More billiance from the Mayor … Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake announced Monday evening that a week-long curfew would go into effect Tuesday from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. local time, but many wondered why it had not been implemented Monday night. How in the hell was this curfew not put into place on Monday?
Daily Commentary – Tuesday, April 28, 2015 – Reports Are That NBC is Trying to Force Brian Williams to Resign
- He has a 50 million dollar contract and could get as much as $30 million to resign
Daily Commentary – Tuesday, April 28, 2015 Download