Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions under fire over Russia meetings

[detbuch]

Why this massive daily frenzy over something for which there is no evidence? But even if there was some collusion, why not treat it like all the foreign collusions and inner surveillances that have gone on before? When Ted Kennedy asked the Russians in 1983 to help defeat Reagan in the upcoming 1984 election, and that was exposed later, WHILE KENNEDY WAS STILL A SITTING SENATOR, there was no media uproar, no congressional investigation, no tiny slap on the wrist, no call for him to step down . . . nothing. When Obama blatantly interfered with the re-election of Netanyahu--no big deal. No little deal. Not to worry. When Obama surveilled journalists that did stuff he didn't like--just a little blip, then gone. When we all removed Saddam Hussein there was later a big hullabaloo against Bush, but helping to remove Gaddafi and straining to remove Assad, no problem. When FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet agents who helped to turn China over to Mao and all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin, eh, the way the cookie crumbles. FDR's reputation was not tarnished. He is one of the Democrat's icons.

There does seem to be a pattern. When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When Democrats do it, it seems to be OK. When Repubs do it, or are accused of doing it . . . not so much.

Trump brings some of this upon himself with his childish rants. But a fair amount of anti-Trump coverage is what you correctly labeled as naked hypocrisy.

The refugee ban, for example. Obama banned refugees from Iraq for 6 months (because he concluded it wasn't safe for us to take any), and he gets to keep his Nobel Peace Prize. Bill Clinton banned refugees from Sierra Leone, and he's a hero. Trump does it, and he's the devil.