On ‘GMA,’ ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Apologizes To Viewers

  • Thread starter Thread starter grotto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

grotto

Guest
newsmax.com/Newsfront/stephanopoulos-apology-gma-clinton/2015/05/15/id/644807/

It gets confusing, as George says, giving to so many different charities - he just couldn’t remember that repeated “conflict of interest donation”.

Maybe he was so close to the Clintons that he considered himself a “Clinton” so where is the conflict of interest? 🤷 All marbleheads use their marbles to think like this.

It just keeps spreading like toenail fungus! If only we could get rid of the Obamas and Clintons by applying a remedy twice a day!
 
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.”

He was making reference to Thursday’s disclosure that he donated money totaling about $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation over the past few years. The contributions leave Stephanopoulos open to charges of bias, given the fact that Hillary Clinton is seen as a leading Democratic candidate for U.S. President in the 2016 election and Stephanopoulos is likely to cover topics that relate to her in his duties on “GMA,” the Sunday-morning program “This Week” and elsewhere on ABC, where his duties include covering breaking news of national importance.

variety.com/2015/tv/news/george-stephanopoulos-good-morning-america-apology-clinton-1201497302/

Stephanopoulos Caught in Clinton Cash Trap

The ABC anchor has admitted he donated the money to the Clinton Foundation. Republicans do not want to let the matter die.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/14/george-stephanopoulos-gave-75-000-to-the-clintons-and-didn-t-declare-it.html
 
Generally speaking, I like George. Since hosting This Week, he hasn’t been 100% neutral, but he’s been as good as I’d expect for a former administration man.

But this was a big error of judgment. My trust in him has taken a hit. I’ll still probably switch from This Week to Face the Nation.
 
40.png
Havard:
Generally speaking, I like George. Since hosting This Week, he hasn’t been 100% neutral, but he’s been as good as I’d expect for a former administration man.

But this was a big error of judgment. My trust in him has taken a hit. I’ll still probably switch from This Week to Face the Nation.
Click to expand...
My opinion of him varies at times, though it is hard to think highly of anyone who that closely identifies with the beliefs and policies of someone like Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Having said that, his reputation to complete nosedive when he made himself into a national joke by opening the Republican debate in January 2012 with a question about banning contraception. He’s either that out of touch and ignorant, or you simply a panderer with no integrity.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
I am not shocked that he is still loyal to the Clintons or that he donated $75, 000 to their foundation. I never cared for the guy anyway and never saw him as trustworthy.
 
Thank goodness for Republicans not willing to “let matters die”! So many matters, so little time!!
Code: 
         Iran nuke deal
         Islamic terrorists all over
         Loss of Mid East success
         IRS
         Benghazi 
         Obamacare
         Racial tension increased 
         Oil pipe line interference
         War on police
         "Fast and Furious"/Atty Gen Holder neglect
         Unsecured border
         Damage to world relations
         Diminished support of military 
         Attempt to undo 2nd Amendment
         Ridicule of Christians
         Threats to abuse  POTUS executive privilege
          Employing inner circle of unAmerican advisors
REINFORCING ABORTION (last listed, first in importance)

I know there is more but I’m weary…
 
Flecth_F_Fletch said:
My opinion of him varies at times, though it is hard to think highly of anyone who that closely identifies with the beliefs and policies of someone like Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Having said that, his reputation to complete nosedive when he made himself into a national joke by opening the Republican debate in January 2012 with a question about banning contraception. He’s either that out of touch and ignorant, or you simply a panderer with no integrity.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
I had forgotten about that contraception question. That’s a good point.
 
He conveniently forgets he gave 75k to the Clinton foundation? Really? He was communications director for the White House under Clinton. I don’t see how he could have forgot this donation or doesn’t understand conflict of interest and disclosure agreements.
 
I’m a bit surprised at the “shock” some are applying to this. George S. has been close to the Clinton’s for 20+ years, I guess I don’t know why anyone would have thought he wouldn’t be supporting them. And I long ago gave up on modern journalists attempting to be bias-free. Especially in the mainstream media. And if they work anywhere but Fox it’s a safe bet they’re card carrying democrats.
 
AKDee said:
I’m a bit surprised at the “shock” some are applying to this. George S. has been close to the Clinton’s for 20+ years, I guess I don’t know why anyone would have thought he wouldn’t be supporting them. And I long ago gave up on modern journalists attempting to be bias-free. Especially in the mainstream media. And if they work anywhere but Fox it’s a safe bet they’re card carrying democrats.
Click to expand...
Well, unlike folks like Dana Perino and Robert Gibbs, who are both opinion pundits, George has tried to remould himself as a “hard news” anchor on This Week. And I would say that I agree that it’s impossible to leave behind all bias, I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in his effort. I honestly think George has been less biased than his competitor, Chuck Todd, or Todd’s predecessor, David Gregory. Not that that is saying a whole lot.
 
AKDee said:
I’m a bit surprised at the “shock” some are applying to this. George S. has been close to the Clinton’s for 20+ years, I guess I don’t know why anyone would have thought he wouldn’t be supporting them. And I long ago gave up on modern journalists attempting to be bias-free. Especially in the mainstream media. And if they work anywhere but Fox it’s a safe bet they’re card carrying democrats.
Click to expand...
I agree. Who, with an ounce of sense, would have thought Stephanopoulos to be anything but a water-carrier for the Democrat party, and particularly for the Clintons?

While I’m sure nobody will ever look into it, one has to wonder a bit about the $75,000 donations. Has he not done enough for the Clintons that he has to give them money as well to remain in their favor? That is impossible to believe. They didn’t need it, and he didn’t need to buy their favor. He could have avoided all of this by giving it to a charity that really is a charity, but he didn’t.

So why did this happen? What’s the “rest of the stroy” as the late Paul Harvey used to say? We’ll never know because there is the possibility of a quid pro quo that would amount to “money laundering”, and it will never be investigated.
 
AKDee said:
I’m a bit surprised at the “shock” some are applying to this. George S. has been close to the Clinton’s for 20+ years, I guess I don’t know why anyone would have thought he wouldn’t be supporting them. And I long ago gave up on modern journalists attempting to be bias-free. Especially in the mainstream media. And if they work anywhere but Fox it’s a safe bet they’re card carrying democrats.
Click to expand...
I don’t see any posts saying they are shocked. Not sure what you’re referring to.
 
Ridgerunner said:
While I’m sure nobody will ever look into it, one has to wonder a bit about the $75,000 donations. Has he not done enough for the Clintons that he has to give them money as well to remain in their favor? That is impossible to believe. They didn’t need it, and he didn’t need to buy their favor. He could have avoided all of this by giving it to a charity that really is a charity, but he didn’t.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it’s a down payment on a position in a Hillary administration. Press secretary?
 
Cider said:
I don’t see any posts saying they are shocked. Not sure what you’re referring to.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the media reports, not what people were saying here. It’s been a firestorm online for two days, and I just don’t understand why people seem so shocked about it. In today’s journalism, it’s practically par for the course. I just assume journalists are biased and do my best to get my news from enough sources that I can glean the kernel of truth out and make up my own mind.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I agree. Who, with an ounce of sense, would have thought Stephanopoulos to be anything but a water-carrier for the Democrat party, and particularly for the Clintons?
Click to expand...
People who watch This Week? With the exception of this and the Republican debate question, I’d put his interviewer/moderator objectivity on an equal level of Fox News’ Chris Wallace. And I’m a conservative.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I agree. Who, with an ounce of sense, would have thought Stephanopoulos to be anything but a water-carrier for the Democrat party, and particularly for the Clintons?

While I’m sure nobody will ever look into it, one has to wonder a bit about the $75,000 donations. Has he not done enough for the Clintons that he has to give them money as well to remain in their favor? That is impossible to believe. They didn’t need it, and he didn’t need to buy their favor. He could have avoided all of this by giving it to a charity that really is a charity, but he didn’t.

So why did this happen? What’s the “rest of the stroy” as the late Paul Harvey used to say? We’ll never know because there is the possibility of a quid pro quo that would amount to “money laundering”, and it will never be investigated.
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing. Is he looking for a reward of some kind? Didn’t Hillary give rewards while she was in the State Department to governments or people who donated to their foundation?
 
Havard said:
Well, unlike folks like Dana Perino and Robert Gibbs, who are both opinion pundits, George has tried to remould himself as a “hard news” anchor on This Week. And I would say that I agree that it’s impossible to leave behind all bias, I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in his effort. I honestly think George has been less biased than his competitor, Chuck Todd, or Todd’s predecessor, David Gregory. Not that that is saying a whole lot.
Click to expand...
I always thought Chuck Todd seemed like a fair and balanced kind of guy. When I think of Stephanopoulis I think of Good Morning America, the new iteration of which nauseates me.
 
IIRC, didn’t George Stephanopoulos’ overly frank book about politics during the Clinton administration, “All Too Human,” result in his being somewhat estranged from the Clintons? Maybe this financial contribution is an attempt to make amends and reinstate himself in their favor. LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top