Skip to main content

View Diary: CNN does hit job on Dawn Zimmer (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  When you interject yourself into (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Pi Li

    a very high profile, very controversial story, that comes down primarily to "she said, she said," you have to expect that, if people scrutinize the credibility of the other side, they are going to scrutinize your credibility just as much.  

    She had to expect this kind of scrutiny was coming when she made the decision to go public.  

    •  That Isn't Scrutiny (13+ / 0-)

      That article is just lying. Where is the presented evidence of the claimed inconsistencies and changed story from Zimmer?

      Yes, Zimmer should expect professional political journalists to lie about her after entering the story, regardless of how solid her evidence is or not. But nobody said she shouldn't expect that.

      So what is your point?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:37:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not "she said v she said." (8+ / 0-)

      That is just a Christie talking point. There is contemporaneous support for her beliefs as well as the documents subpoenaed by the US Attorney's office from the city of Hoboken.

      I am certain she anticipated having her credibility attacked and frankly this may have contributed to the delay in her coming forward with her allegations at the outset.  

      It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

      by smartdemmg on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:46:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  coffeetalk -- your "concern" is noted. again. (5+ / 0-)

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

      by bluezen on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:30:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can respect a difference of opinion (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Danali, Tonedevil

      and enjoy having my position challenged.  But it's just tedious to have broad, unsupported statements (eg, there is no violation of law here) presented as argumentation.  Or ridiculous parsing of language as argumentation (eg, that clown show on Morning Joke earlier today).  I would enjoy debating these scandals with you if you were able to avoid these pitfalls, as well as the logical fallacies (tu quoque in this instance).  Furthermore, would you please point me to the news stories calling into question Guadagno's proclivity for dishonesty, since you see this piece as a reaction to the same being done "to the other side."  

    •  Thanks for the right wing talking points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Danali, Tonedevil

      Honestly - if you're not getting paid to post then you should be.

      You always manage to post the more subtle right wing talking points.

      She had to expect this kind of scrutiny
      This is not scrutiny. Surely you can recognize that. Counselor?

      Do you know the difference between scrutiny and hatchet job?

      If you don't just go ask your employer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site