Clearcut 2017.06.09, substitute host: Shayna Estulin (SE)
Logical notes for reader:
1. Comey’s “feeling” in describing Trump as a liar is NOT equivalent to proven fact (newsworthy report) Trump “is” a liar.
2. President’s apparent disinterest in FBI relative to Russia interference is nothing more than an opinion and claim by a conspicuously-biased Comey. Further, a Russian (primarily overseas oriented) interference investigation is primarily the wheelhouse of intel bureaus, not FBI. Sounds more like Comey suffered from jurisdictional hurt-feelings.
SE, interviewing former NYPD Det Nicholas Casale – who tenaciously kept trying to talk about inherent error of mingling law enforcement with intelligence:
Clearly unsatisfied with the brought-in “expert” guest’s direction (if the person is an expert, then why does a zero-experience bobble-head supersede? If not an expert, then why invited?), SE (with no law enforcement nor intel experience): “What would you do in that case, assuming what Comey said is true?”
It is neither proper nor unbiased nor unfiltered for an interviewer with no experience nor qualifications, who is supposed to ask questions of the “expert,” to supersede the invited guest-“expert,” in this case attempting to redirect the interviewer to “assum[e] what Comey said is true.” That constitutes a case of i24 false advertising; no better than the fake news i24 criticizes! SE needs to learn how to ask logical questions instead of injecting her filter and bias (!) as declarative fact and repeatedly attempting to lead her interviewee to say what she wants him to. Lesson for the incompetent i24 SE and editors advertising unfiltered and unbiased: the proper question along this line would have been: “Should we assume that what Comey said is true?”
Clearly glowering with even more dissatisfaction at the interviewee’s consistent direction, she continued to try to filter him and change his direction to voice her biased opinion and line of attack: SE “But the President crossed the line here, numerous times. What do you do in that position? He [the President] has a responsibility. He’s the President of the United States. He can’t cross the line like that.” This is SE’s personal opinion, based on controversial and unresolved opinions, declared as if it were fact – and that is ex falso quodlibet, socialist (Bernie/Hillary anti-Trump) propaganda disguised as news! SE’s interview was neither proper nor unbiased nor unfiltered. Lesson for the incompetent i24 SE and editors advertising unfiltered and unbiased: the proper question along this line would have been: “Did the President cross the line here?”
i24 has here broadcast a paramount example of fake news: telling the public that the president crossed the line when that has NOT been proven factual – and, moreover, there is considerable doubt as to its veracity!
Still, Mr. Casale resolutely stuck to his position, critical of Comey. So, again, based on her zero law enforcement and intel experience, SE contradicted the guest-“expert” interviewee yet again to inject her own socialist, anti-Trump band-aid over the interview that hadn’t gone the direction she wished: SE “True, but, there is no rulebook for what’s going on here; being fired for [sic] the president, maybe for investigating him. It does seem like this is unprecedented in many ways.”
Mr. Casale corrected her for her wrong – fake news – statement that there is no relevant rulebook. Since Mr. Comey has confirmed that the President was NOT under investigation, SE’s false premise (and ex falso quodlibet subsequent twaddle) inescapably corroborates Eliyahu’s criticism (comment to previous article) and demonstrates that, at least in this episode, i24 did not live up to its advertised goals of unfiltered and unbiased! SE’s “maybe…” should never have been broadcast. Lesson for the incompetent i24 SE and editors advertising unfiltered and unbiased: the proper question along this line would have been: “Is there an applicable rulebook here?”
Still, Mr. Casale resolutely stuck to his position, critical of Comey. So, yet again, SE overrode the guest-“expert” interviewee, declaring her own, zero law-enforcement or intel experience, socialist and anti-Trump filter and bias instead, as to why the guest-“expert” had it all wrong: SE “That’s when the President is acting in a normal way. This is a totally different scenario. But, Nick Casale, thanks for joining us…”
Perhaps SE will provide proper evidential proof that  the President is not acting in a normal way and  why this is scenario is “totally different”. Lesson for the incompetent i24 SE and editors advertising unfiltered and unbiased: the proper question along this line would have been: “Is the president behaving in an unprecedented way?” (And not the leading question so often sneaked in instead: “Isn’t the president behaving in an unprecedented way?”)
So SE is i24’s authority to properly filter and bias overtop of the invited guest-“expert”? I haven’t heard the Clearcut show with Michelle Makori, but I hope it’s not filtered and biased as when SE hosted it! If so, Clearcut, like this episode of flotsam paraded by i24 as “news”, is a prime example of socialist, anti-American (not merely anti-Trump!!!) fake news!
Proper conduct for Comey in the primary two controversial situations would have been:
1. When Lynch signaled her alliance with, and her insistence on dictating that Comey and the FBI conform to the HRC campaign PC-speak (“matter”, not criminal investigation): insist on special prosecutor to prosecute HRC’s 1100 felony violations of the Espionage Act (in improperly transferring classified materials to the public domain) or resign in protest. There is no second proper behavior!
2. If Comey felt Pres. Trump was “directing” him improperly:  advise the president that the suggestion was improper and unacceptable and, if that fails,  report it to the Dep. AG, insisting on a special prosecutor, and resign in protest. There is no second proper behavior!
In addition to Comey’s many self-contradictions and admitted errors of weakness in his own testimony, either of the two instances of improper conduct above required (!) his firing. Pres. Trump was remiss – for failing to fire Comey for the first misconduct because it would have been political self-injury. Heck, if it were me learning that the FBI director had overlooked what he thought to be my presidential bullying, I would have fired him for not doing his job and telling me to my face that what I had done concerned him, and for failing to carry out the duty required by his office!
It still remains, and won’t change, that justice requires that HRC and those complicit with her, be prosecuted for the 1100 felony violations of the Espionage Act in leaking America’s most highly classified secrets into the public domain – cited by Comey! Let’s see, at 10 years in prison per felony, that’s…