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.
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.”
According to a recent AP-GfK Poll, Hillary Rodham Clinton is lacking in being inspiring, likable and of course honesty. One has to wonder what qualifies her to be president of the United States and why people would vote for her with these 3 strikes against her.
What difference does it make what you think
Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s honesty, and even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
Is she strong and decisive? Yes, say a majority of people. But inspiring and likable? Only a minority think so.
Clinton’s struggles to explain her email practices while in government, along with questions about the Clinton Foundation and Republican criticism of her openness, wealth and trustworthiness seem to have struck a nerve in the public’s perception of the dominant Democratic figure in the 2016 campaign. In the survey, 61 percent said “honest” describes her only slightly well or not at all.
Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that “honest” was not the best word for her.
Even so, she is viewed more favorably than her potential Republican rivals, none of whom are as well-known as the former secretary of state, senator and first lady.
IRS-GATE: WHY IS IT THAT EMAILS SEEM TO BE SO TROUBLING FOR LIBERALS LIKE LOIS LERNER AND HILLARY CLINTON?
The TIGTA, the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, has reportedly uncovered some 6,400 emails, either from or to for IRS official Lois Lerner. The emails were either sent or received by Lerner between 2004 and 2013. The TIGTA did not believe that these emails had been previously turned over to Congress. Imagine that? Who really thinks any of these emails are of any relevance? Any inciminating emails have been long been sent down a black hole. This is the IRS we are talking about with a scandal that goes right back to the Obama White House.
An inspector general investigating the IRS’s improper scrutiny of Tea Party groups has found thousands of emails from Lois Lerner, the agency official at the center of that controversy, according to committees involved in the probe.
Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) said it found roughly 6,400 emails either to or from Lerner from between 2004 and 2013 that it didn’t think the IRS had turned over to lawmakers, the congressional committees said. The committees have yet to examine the emails, aides on Capitol Hill said.
The IRS said last year that Lerner’s computer crashed in 2011, leaving it unable to reproduce an untold number of her emails over the prior two years.
Of the emails the inspector general found, around 650 were from 2010 and 2011, while most were from 2012. The inspector general found about 35,000 emails in all as it sought to recover emails from recycled back-up tapes.
The IRS watchdog investigating the disappearance of Lois Lerner’s emails told a Senate committee it has found roughly 6,400 messages that have never before been turned over to Congress.
Lerner was the IRS official at the center of allegations that the agency targeted tea party groups applying for nonprofit status. Congress requested Lerner’s emails from the IRS and agency officials told lawmakers an unknown number of emails had been lost when Lerner’s computer crashed.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is in the process of turning the emails over to the Senate Finance Committee, which is investigating whether the IRS wrongly targeted conservative and other groups seeking tax-exempt status, committee spokesman Aaron Fobes said.
“These emails will be carefully examined as part of the committee’s bipartisan IRS investigation,” he said.
Peter Schweizer, author of the book,“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. So the Clinton’s want us to believe it is all just one big coincidence. PLEASE!!!
WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Well, it’s the old adage — follow the money. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, who just launched her presidential campaign, following the money has led to some troubling questions. Today, we want to drill down into the controversy with Peter Schweizer, author of the new book, “Clinton Cash,” here for his first live interview. But first, “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier, who’s been leading Fox News reporting on the book, has the highlights — Bret. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT ANCHOR: Chris, the dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of what “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer calls the Clinton blur, a mix of money and politics, diplomacy and personal interests all so interconnected that it’s pretty easy to get lost. From lucrative construction deals given to Hillary friends and family after the earthquake in Haiti to $500,000 and $750,000 speeches for Bill Clinton paid for by countries or foreign companies with some action or policy in front of his then-secretary of state wife, to a major uranium mining deal for Clinton friend Frank Giustra, a deal with the country Kazakhstan that is finalized during a Giustra trip with former President Clinton.
JO BECKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: And then soon after that, Bill Clinton got a huge donation, $31 million from Frank Giustra, to his charitable foundation, followed by a pledge to donate $100 million more. BAIER: The company became Uranium One, and was eventually sold to a Russian company that is essentially controlled by Vladimir Putin. They now also control more than 20 percent of American uranium. Officials with Uranium One and investors who profited from that deal donated more than $140 million to the Clinton Foundation. But millions of dollars of those donations were never disclosed, flying in the face of a deal the Clintons struck with the Obama administration. Again, and all of this does not fit on a bumper sticker, but from the book and various media organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News, connecting some of the dots here, most political watchers will tell you, this is, at best for Hillary Clinton, a serious political issue for her campaign — Chris.
(END VIDEOTAPE) WALLACE: Brett, thank you. Now, let’s bring in the man whose team spent 10 years on the Clinton money trail, Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash”. And welcome to “Fox News Sunday.”
SCHWEIZER: Thanks for having me, Chris.
WALLACE: Let’s start with the phrase that Bret mentioned you use in the book, the Clinton blur, the mix of private and public, of charity and government action. What’s your point?
SCHWEIZER: The point is basically when former President Clinton travels the world, which he does extensively, he spends time in the developing world, in Europe. When he goes there, he’s usually wearing several hats. When his wife was in public office, he’s obviously the spouse of a very public figure, he’s the head of a charity, he’s also giving speeches and he’s probably there with an entourage that includes foreign businessmen that have matters before the government, in Colombia, or Kazakhstan, or wherever it may be. And the problem is, when you have a mix of public and private, profit-making backed by the government power that your spouse has, I think it creates a very dangerous cocktail as far as conflict of interests is concerned.
WALLACE: Well, you have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you’re making. Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid, $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state. Peter, what do you think that shows?
SCHWEIZER: Well, I think you can only come to one or two conclusions. Either in January of 2009 when Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, former President Clinton has become dramatically more eloquent than he ever was. He’s a very eloquent man.
WALLACE: Because his speaking fees went dramatically up.
SCHWEIZER: Dramatically. I mean, for example, in the uranium deal, there’s a $500,000 speech that he’s paid by an investment banking firm that is tied to Putin. He was paid $500,000. He had only given one speech in Russia before that five years earlier, for which he was paid a third of that. So, the question becomes, why did his speaking fees go up and why did it go up with corporations and with individuals and with people connected to foreign governments who had business before the State Department?
WALLACE: What’s your answer?
SCHWEIZER: My answer is that’s extremely troubling. The fact you find it’s a very extensive pattern. There’s not one or two examples. There are 11 instances and I think when you have one or two examples, it’s a coincidence. When you have this many, to me it’s a trend.
WALLACE: OK, let’s go through a timeline, and it’s complicated. But a timeline of the uranium deal that you — that Bret mentioned and you reported in the book. 2005, Bill Clinton and Canadian millionaire Frank Giustra fly to Kazakhstan. Giustra lands a big uranium mining deal. Giustra gives the Clinton Foundation $31 million and later pledges $100 million more. 2010, a Russian company wants to buy Uranium One, which has taken over Giustra’s company. The new chairman of Uranium One donates $2 million to Clinton foundation, which fails to report that money. In June of 2010, Bill Clinton gets $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. In October, a U.S. government committee approves the sale of Uranium One to the Russian company. Question, is there a connection between always of those millions of dollars that are going to Clinton personally and to the Clinton Foundation and State Department’s approval of this uranium deal?
SCHWEIZER: I believe there is. It’s not just Frank Giustra. I lay out in the book, there are actually nine, nine major donors to the Clinton Foundation who had written multimillion checks that are tied to this deal. The two financial advisers that arrange for the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government, they’re both major Clinton contributors. The chairman of the company is, some of the key shareholders are. The question becomes, when CFIUS approved this transfer in October, what role did Hillary Clinton play?