Trump and Putin - Assassinate Opponents, Matt Lauer Savaged Over Trump and Clinton Treatment

Liberal lambs, can we talk? The notion that Clinton is disqualifyingly corrupt has been the essence of the press corps' framing of her over the past several years. Those "questions" define an aggressive attack. They land in a well-scripted sweet spot.

Has Candidate Trump ever committed an act which might be seen as "disqualifying?" We think it's astonishing that someone like Lauer would inject such a suggestion into a presidential forum. But if we agree that sauce for the goose might sometimes be sauce for the gander, we can think of at least one offense with which Trump might have been confronted:

Didn't he once spend a year lying about the birth of the reigning commander-in-chief? Had there been any truth to the various claims he advanced? Had everything he said been a lie? Was the entire thing slander?
----- Daily Howler

How Trump is never held accountable for the birther shit is beyond me.

Before I get to the above, let me address the Trump/Putin story.

Don't you love the people who say Trump is just being rhetorical and democracy is safe because of congress and the constitution and the Supreme Court. Trump loves Putin because of how he runs Russia - obliterate the opposition and if necessary hire hit men to remove opponents. It was no accident that Trump hinted at using  the same tactic to stop Hillary after she got elected.

And of course he will fire all the generals and put people in to run the army who would back him when he suspends the constitution for emergency reasons.

There was once this funny guy with a little mustache running around not being taken seriously. He promised strength they and to make his country great again and used the big lie every 5 minutes.

Krytstallnacht for Muslims:
I hear people wanting Trump to take strong stands on Muslims every time we have a terrorist act. If you don't know what this is click the link. What excuse did Hitler use to send out the brown shirts and the populace one night to destroy every Jewis business?

The pretext for the attacks was the assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew living in Paris. Kristallnacht was followed by additional economic and political persecution of Jews, and is viewed by historians as part of Nazi Germany's broader racial policy, and the beginning of the Final Solution and The Holocaust.^[8]

Yes - a terrorist act of sorts by one Jew.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't trust Hillary but I don't expect we will end up in a dictatorship.

There is the flap over both the Paul Krugman column chastising Hillary critics (Hillary Clinton Gets Gored) and leftist Glenn Greenwald chastising Krugman, accusing him and other Hillary backers of trying to do their own version of Trump in going after Hillary critics even if from the left.

• Glenn Greenwald: Liberal Bias For Clinton Is 'Journalistic Malpractice'
•  
• Glenn Greenwald to Paul Krugman: 'The Last Thing Required to ... Defend Hillary Clinton Is Bravery'
• Truthdig‎ - 3 days ago
• Left-Wing Journalist Glenn Greenwald Criticizes Liberal Pundits for Trying to Delegitimize Negative Coverage of Clinton

Finally, the Daily Howler takes his shot at biased reporting especially after Matt Lauer has been savaged

(Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism), (The bashing of Matt Lauer: Why many of the attacks are driven by partisanship)

over his favorable treatment of Trump compared to Hillary the other night. His target is the press and the so-called liberals in the press and how their reporting in essence gives Trump so many breaks. He can say anything no matter how outrageous "Trump says Hillary is an alien from Mars" and they will report it.

Lauer astonishes. So does Chait!

...it finally occurred to him (Chait) that Candidate Trump might win the November election. Welcome back to earth!

We think Trump has an excellent chance, and we think that people like Chait have helped create the world in which that might happen. Meanwhile, have you tried to fight your way through Josh Marshall's account of last evening's forum?

Sad! For now, one last rumination:
Lauer started Clinton off with a lengthy set of questions about the email matter. The questions have all been asked and answered about a million times by now. Perhaps for that reason, Lauer gave his initial question on this topic a bit of a booster shot:

LAUER (9/7/16): The word “judgment” has been used a lot around you, Secretary Clinton, over the last year-and-a-half, and in particular concerning your use of your personal email and server to communicate while you were secretary of state. You’ve said it’s a mistake.

CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

LAUER: You said you made not the best choice. You were communicating on highly sensitive topics. Why wasn’t it more than a mistake? Why wasn’t it disqualifying, if you want to be commander-in-chief?

We'd have to say that's amazing. In his first real question of the night, Lauer directly suggested that Clinton's conduct may have been "disqualifying."

Lauer burned almost forty percent of Clinton's segment with this topic, asking questions which have been asked a million times by now. When his own inquisition was done, the first question from the audience concerned the same topic.

We assume that the audience questions were screened. The first audience question was this:

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much for coming tonight. As a naval flight officer, I held a top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance. And that provided me access to materials and information highly sensitive to our warfighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.

Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are entrusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?

We assume the questions were screened. That said:

In Lauer's first question, he suggested that Clinton's conduct may have been "disqualifying." In the first audience question, Clinton was told that she had "clearly corrupted our national security." It's suggested she should be in prison.