HRC At Clintonian Best In Post 9/11 Anderson Cooper Interview

HRC At Clintonian Best In Post 9/11 Anderson Cooper Interview

It is this response in a phone interview to a question asked by Anderson Cooper about the occurrence:

This excerpted and edited from People Magazine -

When Cooper asked how many times she'd had experienced dizziness in the past five years, citing her concussion in 2012, she said it'd only happened a few times.

"I think really only twice, that I can recall,” she responded. "It is something that has occurred a few times over the course of my life, I'm aware of it and can usually avoid it."
[Reference Here]

Only Twice and the word Few do not match up grammatically ... further, how does one develop a protocol on addressing the condition when the malady had occurred "Only Twice?"

Also, her husband Bill Clinton was right there in the Clintonian cabal of words explaining Hillary's condition:

This excerpted and edited from CBS News -

Asked if there was any chance her faintness on Sunday could be a sign of some more “serious” illness, Clinton said he did not believe that was the case.

“Well if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors,” he said, “because frequently — well not frequently, rarely — but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing happened to her when she got severely dehydrated.”
[Reference Here]

This pull quote "because frequently — well not frequently, rarely — but on more than one occasion" definitely leads we, at MAXINE, to conclude that, when matched up with Hillary Clinton's word "Few" as opposed to "Only Twice", that Hillary has had many episodes (definitely more than "Really Only Twice") and that this medical condition is way more common and serious ... so hence the confusion and Clintonian Cover-Up!

Laura Ingraham asks a medical expert on her morning program Tuesday 9/13/2016 (paraphrased) - "Why would a personal doctor need to be nearby at an appearance recognizing the 15 year 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center buildings in New York if this is a condition that had been stated as being Pneumonia?" - the medical expert suspected that given the known history of incidents (fainting, coughing, losing balance while walking, forgetfulness) that this suggests something much more serious.

Hugh Hewitt Gets It Right - CNN & YouTube, Left

Steve Grove, Age 30, director of news and politics for YouTube. Image Credit: From Hugh Hewitt's weblog website

Hugh Hewitt Gets It Right (as in correct) - CNN & YouTube, Left (as in biased)

Two days ago, Hugh Hewitt was able to interview Steve Grove, director of news and politics for YouTube. Mr. Grove was on Hugh Hewitt to be interviewed because CNN was getting ready to televise a debate of the candidates for the presidential nominee for the Republican Party. YouTube, an internet based video posting service, was a co-sponsor of the debate and was set-up to supply questions submitted from all over the United States. The presumption was that if people who were not in attendance, the audience would not be stacked and further, the questions would not be either … a true and open “town hall” style question and answer debate.

In the interview, Hugh’s suspicions that the people set up to run the debate might alter this presumption of openness of the debate came through as he began to ask Steve Grove questions while Mr. Grove was pushing through a list of talking points. What Hugh was able to ascertain through his interview process was that the staff at CNN would be in control of what questions from YouTube would be prepared for airing and that YouTube had received about 5,000 entries.

Hugh was interested in the process as to how these decisions were going to be arrived at and IF these decisions were going to have any balance.

This was posted Tuesday at Hugh Hewitt’s blog website -

Should We Trust CNN And YouTube In The Debate Wednesday Night?
Posted by: Duane R. Patterson Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 8:24 PM

On July 26th of this year, Hugh warned against the wisdom of GOP candidates participate in a CNN/YouTube debate format.

One day later, I posted one of the early YouTube debate question entries, which reinforced Hugh's concerns. After a brief debate about whether or not Republican candidates should participate in this type of format, it was eventually agreed to and a date was set for Wednesday, November 28th.

A day ahead of the debate, Hugh was joined on the radio show by Steve Grove, director of news and politics for YouTube.

It is an interview that has to be heard, not read. Here it is.

11-27hugh-grove.mp3

As you listen, ask yourself if you trust CNN and YouTube to put together an honest, thoughtul and fair debate between the GOP presidential candidates.
Reference Here>>

We now know that the debate was stacked with Democrat party partisans asking their pre-selected and CNN vetted question via YouTube video snippets, and further, some of the people featured in the aired YouTube question were actually in the audience at the debate … so WHY the YouTube ruse?

The ruse is the responsibility of CNN's D.C. Bureau Cheif David Bohrman, an award-winning producer and veteran news executive. He joined CNN as senior executive producer of the network's flagship evening newscast back in 2001.

This from Machille Malkin -

In a now richly ironic interview with Wired.com before the debate, David Bohrman, a CNN senior vice president, explained why videos were picked not by popular vote, but by supposedly seasoned CNN journalists: The Web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, he claimed. “It’s really easy for the campaigns to game the system.” “You’ve seen how effective the Ron Paul campaign [supporters] have been on the Web,” he noted. “You don’t know if there are 40 or 4 million of them. It would be easy for a really organized campaign to stack the deck."

What does Bohrman have to say about his crack staff now?

This from Hot Air –

Debate questioner is affiliated with Hillary’s — and Kerry’s — campaigns; Update: Plantmania!
posted at 11:09 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

As incredible as it may seem, given all the flak they took for not vetting questioners after the last debate, CNN not only approved a question from someone affiliated with the Clinton campaign without identifying the affiliation, they invited him to the debate so that he could ask a follow-up.

One of the lefty blogs whined after my post about the last debate that those crazy wingnuts shouldn’t be surprised to find former state Democratic Party officials asking questions at what was, after all, a Democratic Party event.

Okay.

Should I not be surprised to find a Democratic campaign operative — not just from this campaign but from the last one too, per the end of this post — asking questions at the Republican debate either?

Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

Update (Bryan): Not that we need anymore proof, but Kerr’s name appears in this Clinton press release. It’s about halfway down the list.

Update (MM): Another one…and another one…and another one…
Reference Here>>

We at MAXINE ask, why do we need Anderson Cooper and CNN to moderate the debate? Why not just issue political operatives from the various campaigns of the opposing political party a microphone and have them run the debate … that’s right, with the General in the audience to field a follow up question, CNN already did!

More evidence of democrat operative questioners from Michelle Malkin.

Additional last thoughts from Hugh Hewitt, himself -

Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Amazing Kreskin

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:25 PM

By having YouTube be the resource for most of the questions, the sponsoring "News" organization brings a level of deniability and a removal of responsibility for being professional and journalistic. In short, CNN allows itself to be politically partisan.

"CNN - The Most Trusted Name In News". Yaa, Right!