....are very disturbing.

Thanks for sharing.

Sam

Nuff sed.

Does not matter if it is Fox news or not. Obama is one who said it not Fox news.

for myself to needlessly subject myself to anything Fox. Just how things are.

People who limit their exposure will forever be living in a world of their own never-changing beliefs. Open your eyes, see what diverse sources have to say, and then make up your own mind. That's a characteristic of intelligence.

propaganda to be a legitimate source for your news. It's been proven that Fox News is completely unreliable and lies to their audience all the time. I thought all democrats knew that. I guess Fox News becomes "good" and even "diverse" when they start telling you what you want to hear.

That's like comparing one pile of horseshit with another.

That was a fascinating interview. I believe Obama to be sincere.

There was no ambiguity in his responses. It was straight and direct. even though he had to repeat the same answer more than twice..but no vague utterances, no word salad, no um's and uh's. no parsing.

I'm no blind loyalist, but I believe Obama's sincerity here.

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)

He repeats it four or five times in various ways, in simple, straightforward language. "I guarantee it. Full stop." He interrupts the interviewer to say that several times--"No political influence in this or any FBI or DOJ investigation. I guarantee it. Full stop." He NEVER talks to the FBI Director or AG Lynch about investigations. "Full stop."

I would like to believe him. He seems so intelligent, so confident, so "together" as a man, as a personality. None of Clinton's eye shifts or worried, rising voice, or stiff-necked turns of head. I don't believe a word she says, ever. He's either 1,000 x smoother than she is, or he is telling the truth.

I listened for loopholes. There was one. He never talks to the FBI or DOJ heads about investigations, but does he have other sources of information or avenues of influence? He says, specifically, that there has been "no political influence" in the Clinton investigation. But he certainly has political interest in it. How could he not? Her scandals are threatening to taint his heretofore non-scandal administration. She is the Democratic Party front-runner. She once ran a dirty campaign against him. And, further, her fuckups on Honduras, Libya and Syria have apparently caused Obama and Kerry to be making efforts now to undo the harm she did. That's what I see in the Obama outreach to Cuba and support for the Colombia peace talks, and the opening to Iran. They are not direct corrections of her fuckups but are mitigating actions in those regions, to be able to leave a legacy of relative peace in his final year in the White House.

And one of her fuckups--Libya--directly resulted from her use of Sydney Blumenthal as an adviser after Obama had forbidden Blumenthal to work in her State Department. (She then hired Blumenthal at the Clinton Foundation and communicated with him--getting his advice and classified intelligence that he shouldn't have possessed--using her private, insecure email server outside of government channels.) (I don't know if her email server was hacked, but Blumenthal's was. That was how her server was discovered.)

Any American citizen who cares about the welfare of our country would have an interest in this investigation. And if Obama said he didn't, then I would know he is lying. It is an unprecedented situation, to have the Democratic Party frontrunner for president under FBI investigation--let alone an investigation under the auspices of a Democratic administration. Who could not be interested in this?

I HOPE that Obama is not issuing standard government bullshit here--calling in an interviewer to ask him about this, and issuing his adamant denials, while something else is going on behind the scenes. Hope.

One other thing: "Nobody is above the law" didn't apply to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld," about whom this very same President Obama said, "We must look forward not backward." The law looks "forward" not "backward" only on the crimes of the rich and powerful. That is obvious. And do they teach that at Harvard Law School? Sure they do. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, et al, were guilty of some of the most heinous crimes of our era, along with truly vast theft and corruption. And we got not even an investigation of these treasonous, cowardly killers, torturers and thieves, let alone the satisfaction of seeing them in prison.

And that rather turns to ashes President Obama's assurance about the FBI investigation of Clinton. I DO NOT KNOW, and cannot even guess, whether Obama would approve of her prosecution, if the FBI recommends it, or try to protect her from it. I see strong motives for him on both sides of the question. But I am struggling with his insistence that there is no political consideration influencing the investigation. (For one thing, how does he know that, if he doesn't talk to the FBI or DOJ heads about it?) And Washington DC is an imperial seat drenched in politics. Drowning in politics. No politics in an FBI investigation of the Democratic frontrunner? Is that believable?

*sigh*

He's saying the investigation isn't being interfered with.

And?

Why - what's wrong with the end comment?

tradition dating back to the founding that the President does not interfere with the Department of Justice. Nixon was run out of office for just that.

Very interesting. It looks to me that if there was an "understanding" between them, he considers it off. That may be why he wanted the interview, to communicate that.

What I don't understand about all this is, how could he not know about her private email use, if not the server? He would have to have seen her email address (hdr22@clintonmail.com) sometime, wouldn't he? I don't know, maybe not but I don't get that, and no statements seem to address that question.

It's my own personal view that Mrs. Clinton's goose is cooked. As to when it will all hit the fan, it might well be after the Dem convention, or after the election, which she may or may not win.

I read her desperation to become President as more than the ambition she had before; she may see it as the only way out of these legal difficulties if it comes to that.

My guess is, her shopping for a VP will tell us a lot. She would need one who would pardon her if necessary. A Gerry Ford. That certainly wouldn't be Warren. It wouldn't be any others of Bernie's camp either. She would need someone who could be easily bought, someone like her, a reliably corrupt insider.

I hadn't thought of that.

It looks to me that if there was an "understanding" between them, he considers it off. That may be why he wanted the interview, to communicate that.

With the US's track record of prosecuting corruption at high levels, I'd be astonished if the DOJ would even seek charges no matter what evidence they may find, so Obama wouldn't need to get involved.

Not sure why some consider that to be newsworthy. He is a man of great character. Most of us are well aware of that fact.

and the comment included if he doesn't know anything then how can he know she is not in trouble something like that.

And have friends in high places. He knows more than any of us. I would really like to think you are kidding with that post.

... one minute ... Obama is in the tank for Hillary, the next he's going throw her under the bus because he hates her.

The only common point ... they think Obama is a bad guy either way.