Just another way the media is biased, dishonest, and fake...

So much ado was made about George Stephanopoulos's interview with the President, specifically in regards to a rather open ended and ambiguous question about receiving information from a foreign source. Unfortunately, this was quite literally much ado about "nothing" that was made out (within the heads of the President's critics) to be "something". Stephanopoulos and his question just exposes the massive hypocrisies we see in modern politics.

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy lays out some of the most blatant of the hypocrisies that we see in modern day politics and modern day government. We all sort of expect that "politically" we will see bias reporting, bias reasoning, and bias in general. That bias generally ends up with hypocritical logic passed off as actual reporting. But in this case, the hypocrisy is actually in regards to how we should run the Government. This sort of hypocrisy crosses so many lines, but is still perfectly acceptable to the liberal elitists.

 Are you seeing how this works? In the Stephanopoulos construct, when a Republican president gets information about the Democratic rival, there is a duty to treat the matter as a crime and report it to the FBI. Since the outreach is not a crime and the FBI won’t actually do anything other than note it in an intelligence file, the transparent purpose of this construct is to convert any Republican failure to report the non-crime into a political scandal — bordering on treason.

By contrast, when a Democratic president is in power, the intelligence community is placed in the service of the Democratic candidate. If a foreign power reaches out with information, no matter how dubious, about the Republican candidate, the administration does not notify the FBI to investigate the foreign power for interfering in our election; the Democratic administration thanks the foreign power and then directs the FBI to investigate the Republican candidate.

So in a nutshell:

• When Obama/Clinton gathered information on Trump from foreign source it was used it to start an investigation on Trump.
• But if Trump were to be similarly given information on his opponent from a foreign source, it should be used to start an investigation into the source for possible election interference and possible conspiracy... with Trump's own campaign. 

This is quite literally a political bias used to argue that the manner in which our law enforcement should proceed differently, depending on whether there is a Democrat or Republican in office. 

The reality is that the Stephanopoulos question provided no context. Likely on purpose. Was the information credible? Was the source credible? Did it come from a hostile source or a friendly source? Was it mere allegations, or was there actual evidence? Was the information merely embarrassing or did it suggest something more criminal? Was the information just information, or was it something that could be actionable? 

The correct answer to a question this ambiguous would be "it all depends", which is primarily what the President said. As President he talks to foreigners every day. He cannot possibly refer any and all such discussions to the FBI without a legitimate reason. Any President would act differently if he got relevant actionable verifiable information from a well established ally, than he would if he got dubious national inquirer type information from an untrusted source. 

Without the context of the specifics here, it provides Stephanopoulos the chance to ask a generic question and then use the worst possibilities to determine that the President answered the question corruptly. If Stephanopoulos wanted to specifically asked Trump what he would do if Russia came to him with dubious intelligence about his opponent, that would have been a fair question, and he would have likely gotten an absolute answer. Had he wanted to know what Trump would do if a trusted ally had verified information, then he should have asked that, and would have likely gotten a specific answer. 

But he didn't. As I suggested earlier... this was likely on purpose. Stephanopoulos is not an honest journalist. This is just more proof of that fact.