Megyn Kelly debut on NBC- Putin interview!

[Correll]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

 

[Ika1953]

Not coked up, aye?

 

[Ika1953]

good catch

 

[JakeStarkey]

poor photo shop

 

[blackhawk]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

 

[Correll]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is Correll whom you are answering.

Always keep that in mind.

 

[blackhawk]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

Why wouldn't he agree to discuss Russian hacking? There is no downside for him there not the same with Syria, demographics, or terrorism.

 

[Marion Morrison]

poor photo shop

No retouching, straight from Youtube interview.

That is her face, going a million miles an hour.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Cons loved her when she was on Fox .. now, not much.

Nope....I always thought she was a self-serving C*nt.

Me too.

 

[Correll]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

Why wouldn't he agree to discuss Russian hacking? There is no downside for him there not the same with Syria, demographics, or terrorism.

Sure there is a downside.

He WANTS better relations with the US.

THis scandal is a big hurdle for that.


Syria? What would the downside be there? Some hard questions about collateral damage?

Demographics? No downside there.

Terrorism? HE can talk tough about what he is doing, while by that, make most world leaders look weak for doing less.

 

[Marion Morrison]

OldLady She said "For the record, US intelligence has

concluded that Mr. Putin himself ordered the disruption of the

election"

Is this information verifiable? I highly doubt that.

Sounds like to me.

That's more like it, Marion.

Some US intelligence did say that, though, didn't they? I don't know that anything they're saying could be "verified" to some people's satisfaction, though, because that's the only way to deny the Russians influenced our election. They ALL agree the Russians had their fingers in it and Russia being what it is, they find it hard to imagine that Putin wouldn't be aware of hacking by government employees. The hacking was done by government sites.

Thunder Mouth doesn't like the scenario of Russian meddling, because he has to be with winner because he's simply amazing and beloved by all. No help at all, folks. You get that? It is NOT a good reason to question their involvement. If Trump hadn't questioned it from the beginning, we probably wouldn't be wasting time and money on this investigation.

Some named US intelligence said that? I think not.


Feel free to prove me wrong.

Go for it, Marion! Pout! Pout!!

You have a quote of a named person in the intelligence community saying that

Putin himself ordered disruption

of

US election? Let's see it then Jakey.

You are no one to call for proof, Marion, simple fact.

The statements by the DOJ, the intel agencies, the FBI, senators and congress people suffice for the likes of you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Here, I'll give you one, it's void!

The article from Jan 6th,2017

DECLASSIFIED: Read the intelligence report on Russia interfering with US election

and the so-called "source".

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections | Rt (Tv Network) | Intelligence Analysis

 

[blackhawk]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

Why wouldn't he agree to discuss Russian hacking? There is no downside for him there not the same with Syria, demographics, or terrorism.

Sure there is a downside.

He WANTS better relations with the US.

THis scandal is a big hurdle for that.


Syria? What would the downside be there? Some hard questions about collateral damage?

Demographics? No downside there.

Terrorism? HE can talk tough about what he is doing, while by that, make most world leaders look weak for doing less.

I don't think he cares about relations with the U.S. The downside of Syria is he's supporting Assad which puts him on the same side as Iran his forces are doing more target what is supposed to be the pro democracy rebels than ISIS and there was the chemical weapons attack which prompted the U.S. cruise missile attack. Right now terrorist are focusing their attention on England and Western Europe not Russia I can't see him wanting to do anything to change that.

 

[Ika1953]

The interview was as expected when a thug leader is being interviewed you never get much if anything of substance from it. Kelly didn't do any better or worse than anyone else would have done in interviewing Putin.

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

Kelly is probably better at sucking than we can imagine - so far she only did her dumb blonde bit. Let's see the same thing without all the clothing. She did exactly what I knew she would do. Self-aggrandizing crap with no logic and no shame - shameless self denial. She thinks her pea brain challenged Putin while he ran circle around her. That is the essence of being stupid and advocating agenda for which you are paid not the one that is logical or rational.

 

[Correll]

I could have done better.

Wasting time on questions of unproven scandals that she has no way to nail him down on was stupid on her part.


How about some questions on the Syrian Intervention? Or Russia's demographic crisis? Or how THEY are dealing with terrorism?

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

Why wouldn't he agree to discuss Russian hacking? There is no downside for him there not the same with Syria, demographics, or terrorism.

Sure there is a downside.

He WANTS better relations with the US.

THis scandal is a big hurdle for that.


Syria? What would the downside be there? Some hard questions about collateral damage?

Demographics? No downside there.

Terrorism? HE can talk tough about what he is doing, while by that, make most world leaders look weak for doing less.

I don't think he cares about relations with the U.S. The downside of Syria is he's supporting Assad which puts him on the same side as Iran his forces are doing more target what is supposed to be the pro democracy rebels than ISIS and there was the chemical weapons attack which prompted the U.S. cruise missile attack. Right now terrorist are focusing their attention on England and Western Europe not Russia I can't see him wanting to do anything to change that.

1. The US is the one that gives our European allies the balls to fuck with him on the Ukraine.

2. Pro-democracy rebels always lose to islamists radicals. He would not be afraid to talk about Syria.

3. The Chemical Weapon attack was Syria, the US strike wasn't Putin's problem. He would not be afraid to talk about that.

4. Terrorism doesn't "Focus". Terrorists are doing more in Western Europe because they can get away with more there.

 

[Ika1953]

In order to get interviews with hardliners like Putin generally you have to agree not to bring up certain topics I would be surprised if that was not the case here. Those would be good questions to ask but the chances of Putin agreeing to address them were slim and none in my view.

Sooo, he agreed to discuss the Russian Hacking and wouldn't agree to discuss Syria or Demographics, or Terrorism?

Seems unlikely.


Kelly blew it.

Why wouldn't he agree to discuss Russian hacking? There is no downside for him there not the same with Syria, demographics, or terrorism.

Sure there is a downside.

He WANTS better relations with the US.

THis scandal is a big hurdle for that.


Syria? What would the downside be there? Some hard questions about collateral damage?

Demographics? No downside there.

Terrorism? HE can talk tough about what he is doing, while by that, make most world leaders look weak for doing less.

I don't think he cares about relations with the U.S. The downside of Syria is he's supporting Assad which puts him on the same side as Iran his forces are doing more target what is supposed to be the pro democracy rebels than ISIS and there was the chemical weapons attack which prompted the U.S. cruise missile attack. Right now terrorist are focusing their attention on England and Western Europe not Russia I can't see him wanting to do anything to change that.

1. The US is the one that gives our European allies the balls to fuck with him on the Ukraine.

2. Pro-democracy rebels always lose to islamists radicals. He would not be afraid to talk about Syria.

3. The Chemical Weapon attack was Syria, the US strike wasn't Putin's problem. He would not be afraid to talk about that.

4. Terrorism doesn't "Focus". Terrorists are doing more in Western Europe because they can get away with more there.

Things with Kelly (I just don't want to spell Megyn - who wants to be a Megan but also wants to be different and benefit from "our exceptionalism" - (what self aggrandizing and self-glorifying rubbish?)

Example Putin's generosity:
Kelly: Do you not think that Assad is a bad guy?

Putin could have answered with a clever question: is it possible that the US public is brainwashed to the level of pre-school kids separating the world into good guys and bad gays - white hat and black hats? Maybe you have some maturity to experience to exit the infantile stage of reasoning. - she would have been buried for life. But people like her are on Hilary ample payroll and she would have come up with more rubbish.

Putin was also clever enough to mention "you created Al Quida to fight the Soviets - result is Al Quaida came back to bite you in the ass in a big way. There is not one ounce of deception in that statement.

This interview was an endemic American disaster which grows as a result of systemic indoctrination. Are we all collectively that infantile to trust when she says "we know that Assad gassed his own people" - how do we "know" that? What if it was a set up? After all Al Capaone was never charged with countless murders and sales of liquor but for not paying taxes - so we are to conclude that he was just an average Joe? - Big deal he didn't pay his taxes and he got nailed - there is no mention of any other crimes. Her thinking is that superficial and glib.

I conclude that this is a very dangerous time for our democracy and that we are being guided into some other system - far divorced from what our founding fathers had in mind.