Is Judicial Watch out to get Hillary Clinton?

[mnorian]

Of course this is old news; from the Intelligencer/NYmag; back in 2015 by Jonathan Chait; reported that, Kirsten powers, a Blonde, incidentally; said that mentioning that Megan Kelly was Blonde "was objectifying her" I hope that's correct as I cant keep the Blondes on Fox straight without a score card.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/fox-news-stop-dehumanizing-fox-news-as-blonde.html

 

[cow451]

View attachment 181190
View attachment 181191

Of the 26 female hosts and anchors listed on the Fox News website, by our count roughly about half are blond and half are not.

That proves FoxBabeNews is an equal opportunity employer. Hot brunettes have opportunities as well. But what about redheads?

 

[brinny]

LOL!

 

[PapaZoom]

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016...with-like-way-more-than-a-cloth-or-something/

Very telling about the email mishandling. This proves intent. More to come.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gowdy-fbi-didnt-ask-clinton-about-intent/article/2600177

 

[jimmyjimmy]

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016...with-like-way-more-than-a-cloth-or-something/

Very telling about the email mishandling. This proves intent. More to come.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gowdy-fbi-didnt-ask-clinton-about-intent/article/2600177

She has lied, lied, lied, about all of this. She lies so badly, it's insulting.

 

[PapaZoom]

She has lied, lied, lied, about all of this. She lies so badly, it's insulting.

Yes. And she lies about lying and then lies about lying about lying. And those that support her just look the other way. Or point to Trump.

 

[mnorian]

Yes. And she lies about lying and then lies about lying about lying. And those that support her just look the other way. Or point to Trump.

Hey Papa: I found a thread for you; and they let you say whatever you want about Hilary:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/more-emails-of-hillary-are-found.7962613/

Oh; wait; so do we!

 

[mnorian]

Judicial Watch harassers the elderly to finance there ultra-right wing agenda:

Reviews from Greatnonprofits,org (and not so great) :

• Concerned for my Parents
  Role: General Member of the Public
  Rating:1stars
  04/08/2013
  
  This is a scam. They do in fact, prey on the elderly. Do not send money, nor let your loved ones be taken in, and taken advantage of, by this horrific "organization". WHY these thieves are not shut down is simply amazing. The elderly, on fixed incomes and vulnerable, are their targets. Have they no shame or conscience?
  
  
• Laura Feld

Role: General Member of the Public
Rating:1stars
02/24/2013

This group has been hounding my mother with unsolicited letters asking for money. She is 80 years old and has the beginnings of dementia and we just realized she has been sending them checks. I agree with the other reviewers that say they prey on the elderly after seeing their onslaught of mail to my mom. I have written to them and demanded that they remove her name from their contact list immediately. Sadly this is just one of many "organizations" that take advantage of those who are easily influenced

• M Foote
  Role: Donor
  Rating:1stars
  12/13/2012
  
  I am writing on behalf of my father who has been completely scared senseless by Judicial Watch. He has donated perhaps over a thousand dollars of money he cannot afford to spend because he believes JW is exposing corruption. Now that my dad is in assisted living, I see almost daily requests for MORE $ in the mail. These mailings are egregious and inflammatory. Their TOP 20 Worst Criminals list has one token Republican on it - come on!!! I completely agree they are preying on the fears of the elderly. I have repeatedly requested they remove us from their mailing list, and have just discovered they talked my dad into an Automatic Withdrawal from his checking account. I read their own founder sued them for misappropriation of funds - I hope the truth about JW comes out and they are shut down.
  
  
  
• coquie
  Role: General Member of the Public
  Rating:1stars
  09/25/2012
  
  Tom Fitton is a public offense. This is a thinly veiled hate group that preys upon the elderly, low information people, and extreme right wing madness. They are aggressively fighting for voter suppression. This is not a charity, it is a sham. It brings down charity navigator that they are here. I answered that they have a little impact, but not in a positive way.
  
  
• dcwagner
  Role: General Member of the Public
  Rating:1stars
  07/03/2012
  
  This organization is a SHAM! They prey on senile, elderly people and appeal to their fear. My mother was suffering from demential and received appeals from this organization about twice per month. We tried repeatedly to get them to take her off a list, but they did not respond. My brother, who lives in the DC area even checked out the address on record, and no such office existed. If this is a real organization, I would love to hear their explanation!
  
  
• 
  
  Karen81
  Role: General Member of the Public
  Rating:1stars
  06/26/2012
  
  This group should not be tax exempt. The headline of their fundraising letter is "Stop Acorn and the Entire Corrupt Obama machine from stealing the 2012 Elections." They are not non-partisan. I see no action against Republicans on their web site. And receiving this letter in an election year when they have never solicited from me before is lobbying. They can speak but contributors don't get a tax break for them lobbying against poor people voting. I don't want to give them even one star but that's the only way I can file these comments!
  
  
• Diane Levison
  Role: General Member of the Public
  Rating:1stars
  05/25/2012
  
  How can this organization possibly be viewed as a "charity." I have received innumerable mailings from it, seeking funds to promote the far right agenda, and based on so many irresponsible falsehoods, that to categorize this group as "nonpartisan" is absolutely ridiculou
  

http://greatnonprofits.org/org/judicial-watch-inc

 

[PapaZoom]

Hey Papa: I found a thread for you; and they let you say whatever you want about Hilary:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/more-emails-of-hillary-are-found.7962613/

Oh; wait; so do we!

Yes and then instead of addressing the hillary issues they point to trump

 

[mnorian]

Yes and then instead of addressing the hillary issues they point to trump

Well; yes...but he is sort of the 800 lb Gorilla in the room.

 

[USincognito]

Of the 26 female hosts and anchors listed on the Fox News website, by our count roughly about half are blond and half are not.

Maria "Money Honey" Barteromo (Rrraawwr) is on FBN, not Fox News, and she's been toning up the blonde highlights over time.

 

[USincognito]

Maybe the Left is blonde-a-phobic.

What an odd non sequitur given that their presidential candidate has been blonde for nearly 30 years.

 

[USincognito]

Yes and then instead of addressing the hillary issues they point to trump

Note to self - check PZ's comments to see if he ever responded to something about the Dumpster by pointing to Hillary.

 

[MrSpikey]

I've commented on that several times already, so I should think that this would have already been answered, but I think the media have a responsibility either to own up to their biases in the fashion of the Daily Kos or some publications on the Right, or else be what journalists were until very recently--investigators in the public interest who would ferret out the facts, expose unethical behavior on the part of public officials where necessary, and deliver all the relevant information to the readers so that they could make their own judgments, especially perhaps when it concerns elections.

Investigative journalism still exists. What individual media outlets feel is worth investigating will depend on their owner and political perspective. This is also true of those that consume their products - a well informed electorate is a noble goal, but, for me at least, well informed can mean listening to a number of different views and making personal evaluations. Blanket statements of general media failure to expose specific alleged unethical behaviour, etc, could perhaps indicate bias in the commentator and a desire to have the media follow suit?

 

[Albion]

Investigative journalism still exists.

I agree that that's so, but it's more significant that the outlets that have the most readership and viewership (major daily newspapers and the major TV news channels) are no longer among them.

It's not toooo much consolation to know that some publications that few people turn to for their information are doing a good job, while the ones that are no longer making even a pretense of being professional are assumed by many people to still be what they were years ago when standards were high.

 

[Albion]

Maria "Money Honey" Barteromo (Rrraawwr) is on FBN, not Fox News, and she's been toning up the blonde highlights over time.

Why are you so fixated on the women newscasters and their looks? It's a bit creepy, don't you really think?

 

[MrSpikey]

I agree that that's so, but it's more significant that the outlets that have the most readership and viewership (major daily newspapers and the major TV news channels) are no longer among them.

It's not toooo much consolation to know that some publications that few people turn to for their information are doing a good job, while the ones that are no longer making even a pretense of being professional are assumed by many people to still be what they were years ago when standards were high.

At a general level, I find it hard to blame media outlets that once did much more for now doing much less as their income has significantly decreased. Lots of people apparently think they can still get journalism of the same quality level that they used to fund (by buying papers etc) for free on the Internet.

If people as a whole aren't prepared to pay for informed opinion or investigative journalism, I wonder why there is surprise that what we get instead tends to be shoddy opinion.

Free doesn't mean good.

 

[Albion]

At a general level, I find it hard to blame media outlets that once did much more for now doing much less as their income has significantly decreased. Lots of people apparently think they can still get journalism of the same quality level that they used to fund (by buying papers etc) for free on the Internet.

Personally, I doubt that theory. If one of these were to do some serious work, it would be bombshell stuff that every other news outlet would be talking about for weeks. But as it is, I get phone calls from the NYTimes asking me to subscribe and when I mention that it doesn't have much of a reputation anymore, they actually reply that at least it's well-known! Isn't that pathetic? Isn't that a indicator of the reason revenues are down?

 

[MrSpikey]

Personally, I doubt that theory. If one of these were to do some serious work, it would be bombshell stuff that every other news outlet would be talking about for weeks. But as it is, I get phone calls from the NYTimes asking me to subscribe and when I mention that it doesn't have much of a reputation anymore, they actually reply that at least it's well-known! Isn't that pathetic? Isn't that a indicator of the reason revenues are down?

If you think they are just taking the money and not doing much, then I guess that's the opinion you'd reach. Here in the UK, we've had publications close, others beg for individual committed reader funding outside the front page price, some try for paywall Internet revenue (and others notable not), many shift to a much more simplistic Internet style of "churnalism".

Investigative journalism isn't a career choice if your media isn't well funded; it becomes an idealogical choice, and I don't believe that is generally useful.

 

[bhsmte]

Judicial Watch is a right-wing group for certain. You will never see them go after anyone but the Democrats or moderates. That said, they are not muckrakers. They use legal tactics and the court system.

Correct.

Judicial watch would certainly like to find the goods on Hilary and has no appetite to do the same with republicans.

With that said, they do follow legal means and what they find is what they find. Hilary made this mess, all on her own.