Andrea Mitchell escorted out of room where SoS Tillerson was having a meeting.

[kentuck]

It was shown on MSNBC a couple of days ago. As Andrea tried to ask a question, a couple of women escorted her from the room.

Tillerson, former head of Exxon and now Secretary of State, ignored her. He smirked and continued to talk with his guest, who may have been a Russian official?

It was not reported whom he was meeting with - only that Andrea was escorted from the room - and they used the footage as a promotional ad for MSNBC.

[mnhtnbb]

1. Geeze, when Andrea Mitchell is kicked out...they have gone full fascist.

[Hortensis]

19. Bizarre. She worked so hard to defeat Hillary and the Dems.

Apparently if you're not actually wearing his cap, you're the enemy?

[karynnj]

25. I objected to that accusation during the election --and I still do.

She did her job then and she is doing it now. I also watched her coverage of HRC when she was Secretary of State and she was very supportive of Clinton. I also thought her questions - even when tough - to John Kerry were fair. Both as Secretaries seemed to respect her professionalism - and both gave her a lot of access, which is the best measure of what they really think.

I think, as a reporter, she followed the email questions where they led. As the resident foreign policy expert, she was the lead NBC/MSNBC person on this. She also had many many questions that she asked of Trump -- and her coverage of him was more negative.

If you read some of the internal Podesta emails, people within the Clinton campaign were more negative in private of her team's handling the questions than Mitchell or any of the press were. This was a self inflicted problem that was handled very very poorly. Giving the paid Goldman /Sachs speeches - though completely legal and her changing denials on the email server - leading to a constant drip of negative stories did not help.

However, I have not seen a careful analysis of the results. The two candidates were night and day on the issues -- and I think that we had the majority on most. An interesting question is whether the vote was actually ON THE ISSUE/ISSUES that meant the most to the voters almost ignoring the relative merits of the standard bearers.

We know that BOTH candidates had high negatives. You can argue that Clinton did not deserve hers, but there is no question that she had them. An unknowable question is whether if there was no email issue (maybe because in this alternative universe, she passed all the work emails to the State Department -which then moved as quickly as they could to satisfy the FOIA requests) if the Republicans could have raised the 1990 era negatives of not being trustworthy and being secretive with NO SoS or Senate examples to point to. (Remember that in 2008 and 2016, the Clinton campaign claimed that she was SO vetted that the Republicans could not create negatives by distortion.) We also know from exit polling that a very high proportion of people who disliked both candidates - voted for Trump.

It is important that we do not credit Russia, wikileaks etc - or heaven forbid, credit Trump with being an extraordinary candidate who could win when the dynamics were not in favor for the Republicans -- if the situation was that after 8 years of the Democrats moving the ball on issue after issue in the direction we wanted that the country shifted to wanting change to stop or be reversed. Remember that the right direction/wrong direction was a warning through the whole election. It might also mean that ANY Democratic candidate - even if scandal free and as charismatic as could be - might have lost 2016. What is clear is that there are two American narratives that are completely divorced from each other at the moment. (It is seriously scary to read the links to the right where Obama is a devious, lawless criminal - who so could have bugged Trump.)

That was a huge diversion, but I really dislike when we become like the right and blame the news media for asking questions.

[Hortensis]

31. Sorry, but she was a major Hill-Hate pusher, just styled

her statements more "respectable mainstream" than some of the others. Her caricatured behaviors of delight and despair whenever Hillary was doing particularly bad or particularly well were a joke I watched for, though. During our convention I nevertheless wondered if she was seriously ill and we'd hear she was taken to a hospital, she overdid it so much. Nope, just her acting out her unhappiness before the whole world. Weird.

[yeoman6987]

35. I don't agree with some of your analysis, but

I am extremely impressed with your writing skills and styles. You really should be writing for a newspaper or at least write a book.

[karynnj]

37. Thanks for the compliment

As someone who was a math/economics major, more comfortable with my analytic skills, I appreciate your compliment.

[Me.]

36. Disagree About Her Supporting HRC

Every day, on her show, she, Chris Cillizza and sometimes Ruth Marcus would cut Hillary to shreds. And if they weren't sticking the knife into HRC they were doing it to PBO. And I ver heard her do a report on HRC, and I heard plenty, that didn't have a negative edge to it.

[karynnj]

39. I followed the coverage of Obama foreign policy pretty closely

Mitchell's reports in the 2013 time frame were incredibly positive on what Clinton/Obama had been able to accomplish. As someone for whom DU JK was the first place I looked on DU for over a decade, I think that Mitchell was fair to Kerry. I say this realizing that I was part of a group that never even pretended to be unbiased with regards to Kerry.

Now, I do think that she, Martha Radditz, and Margaret Brennan ALL asked serious, difficult questions. Yet, I think BOTH Kerry and Clinton actually were better in interviews where tough complicated questions were asked on policy. This was perhaps truer of Kerry whose passion and purpose was often best shown when speaking of goals, and reasons why he was working on many intractable problems. To their credit, both seemed more comfortable in that setting than with puff interviews.

I realize that you are speaking of the political comments made by Cilliza, Marcus and Mitchell -- as talking heads. I think the three of them all were coming from somewhat different places. Cilliza is someone who sees everything as politics and a game. I have never liked him or been impressed with him -- maybe for the same reason that I dislike most political operatives, who I see as more involved with the game than with causes or issues. I saw Mitchell and Marcos as two women who had followed Clinton since the 1990s, were themselves feminist pioneers in their fields and who were harder on Clinton when they were disappointed in her - because they wanted her to succeed.

[Me.]

41. Sorry But What Is The Logic In Being Harder On Her

to help her succeed? Especially in light of how they gave 45 a pass on everything. And if Mitchell wasn't smacking around HRC on her show, she was loading praise on BS. This, I think, is a subject that is in the eye of the beholder. I lost all respect for Mitchell during this last election.

[karynnj]

42. "when they were disappointed in her"

They expected better from her and when she did things that they had a problem with -- they showed that disappointment.

I do think that we all see thinks through our own perspectives. In 2016, I thought both HRC and BS to be flawed nominees, but both immensely better than any Republican - especially Donald Trump. I think HRC was a better person/Senator/Secretary of State than she was a candidate -- and this really was similar to 2008.

As I have said, this might have in reality not have been "our" year and any Democrat would have lost. The sides were pretty clearly defined -- and Trump's favorables were worse than HRC's.

[Me.]

43. But Isn't That Sort Of The Point

They had no business being disappointed in her, except in their private lives. The expectation used to be that those who considered themselves to be a journalist would be impartial.

As for our year, I don't know either. There was, imho, a lot of illegal activity going on and had we been on the alert for that, as well as the rapacious intent of the Cons in getting the WH, things might be different. But people were distracted, or allowed themselves to be, by HRC's emails. Mention of which was continually made by Andrea. And frankly, if was to go all conspiracy-ish, I'd say she was ticked off that her husband was blamed for his part in the economic meltdown and wasn't shown due deference by the WH or the Dems.

[karynnj]

45. I don't think you can prove or disprove that the Russian hacking had an impact

If you look just at polling, the DNC hack did not seem to have a negative impact on HRC - her numbers improved in that interval. That was before and during the DNC convention and there was unity - even after those relevations. I never saw a correlation between any of the Podesta emails and HRC's numbers. It is possible that the constant drip of stories changed the way the campaigns went.

Where there IS a correlation is that the first Comey letter clearly cut her support. This, however, was not technically illegal - though Comey was told not to put it out. The email issue - overblown as it was - was something the result of bad decisions HRC made. She KNEW the email had already been requested before she left office. In retrospect, had she left the work email at the SD electronically, it is likely no one would ever have heard the words "email problem" or" private server". Did she seriously think they would give up asking or that Kerry and Obama would stonrwall for 4 years - destroying their reputations?

[Me.]

49. True About Comey

But as to the emails themselves, a lot of people used private servers it turns out including Kerry, Powell, Chavetz, Pence....They were just looking for something with her and while I understand she thought it was ok, she should've known they'd be looking for any little thing. At the end of the day, I think it was a witch hunt and one which would never happen to a Con. And I'd be willing to bet any money had she made it to the WH they would've kicked her around every day of her presidency. And I'll also say this, Mitchell would not have had to book herself on commercial flights to follow the SoS during the upcoming Asian trip in a Clinton WH.

[karynnj]

50. No one other than HRC used a private server

Kerry, from day one as Secretary of State used State.gov. He also put in place a procedure where if someone sent him email on his personal email (many of his peers knew him for decades), he would respond on using state.gov. In addition, to avoid losing anything, his staff regularly checked his personal email and archived anything deemed work related at the State Department. This is FAR from what HRC did. I do not know what the law for Indiana was - but I doubt he was supposed to be using a private account.

Note the biggest problem I have was that she did not archive the work email. She returned it only when the Obama SD fought for it about a year and a half after she left. That is better than Colin Powell, who used a private account (not a private server) but archived nothing - and failed to save it personally. Not to mention, as Comey and the SD IG both agreed HRC did not break any laws. However, there was POLITICAL DAMAGE because she did break Obama administration practices by not archiving her email.

There is no question that EVERYTHING about the Trump administration is worse -- I am certainly not suggesting that HRC was worse.

[Hortensis]

46. Speaking of hiding attitudes in words and seeing

through our own perspectives. So, the knives out for HRC were just indications of Andrea's and other admirers' great...admiration of her and also their great disappointment in her when she continually and constantly failed to meet their great expectations of her.

And all the rest.

Umhm. Btw, I strongly recommend the "full ignore" tool for cutting some of the crap hiding knowledgeable and insightful posters. There are lots of people here worth discussing politics with. Especially useful for avoiding being lured into wasting time swiping at nonsense.

[karynnj]

47. You are twisting what I said beyond belief

Obviously I failed to express what I thought very well. However, you can look back pre 2013 and you will find that both women were supportive of Clinton. I suspect that they were as appalled at how badly she managed the revelvation of the email scandal and other things in the campaign.

[JHan]

2. #ButHerEmails

[Lucinda]

9. +1

[kstewart33]

3. That's the second time that Mitchell has confronted Tillerson.

Every time Tillerson's people stage a photo op with a foreign official, she's there peppering Tillerson with questions, as she is escorted out of the room.

Go get 'em, Andrea!

[Zoonart]

32. She should have...

Sat right down in the floor and told them to carry her out with the cameras rolling. THAT! I would respect.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Yes... this

[Glamrock]

4. I wish someone would remind her

that Hillary's SOS would have answered her questions. Serves her right.

[Cosmocat]

14. THIS

+1,000,000

[Hortensis]

20. Serving her right would be retiring her. Hope

they manage it.

[Glamrock]

22. Well

if the admin isn't answering her, she can't do her job. Ipso facto......her services aren't really needed are they?

[dalton99a]

30. Yep.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. Yes, Andrea had no one to blame but herself! Shame on her!

[eppur_se_muova]

5. She was once frogmarched out of the room by an African dictator's goons ...

after being told the press weren't allowed to ask certain questions, and then asking anyway.

Hope the parallel isn't lost on her; she helped tip the scales against Hillary, and thus gave us Dolt45.

[Buckeyeblue]

6. Ha!

I haven't been able to watch her in a long time. That constipated look she would get before she would launch into her anti- clinton coverage was too much. I hope she is happy.

[Tanuki]

7. Nothing subtle the about the way she was treated...

https://m.

[Chiyo-chichi]

10. I'm betting that if you tried harder, you could find a video of this that isn't titled

"MSNBC Leftist Andrea Mitchell PHYSICALLY Removed After Shouting at Tillerson."

I'll bet you could also find one that doesn't describe how she "loved on Obama for eight years."

You post one that has a RW, Trump-supporting, anti-liberal slant? Really?

[ProfessorGAC]

12. Beat Me By One Minute

I'm suspicious of the source as well.

[Tanuki]

16. I looked on YouTube for a clip and this was in fact the only one I found

I noticed the heading, which I, too found offensive, and tried to find the same brief clip directly at MSNBC but could not. In the interest of illustrating the OP's point about how Andrea Mitchell, a venerable American journalist was treated, I went ahead and posted it for the benefit of others who may not have seen it. I frankly don't have time to do any more research to find the same clip from another source than youtube, but if you do please feel to do so. I was trying to be helpful and don't much like the implication that I am trying to further a right wing agenda.

[exboyfil]

27. Says a lot about MSNBC that it was not featured

I heard there is a clip of her being forced out by an African dictator as well. These need to be widely shared.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Is This Doctored?

MSNBC "Leftist"? "Lefitst"? Something is fishy here.

[Chiyo-chichi]

13. It's not "doctored," per se.

MSNBC did not title it that way.

A bunch of YouTube users (or one sock puppet or copycat Freepers) have posted this video with the same title and the same description of how Andrea Mitchell "loved on Obama for 8 years."

A video with that slant on it does not belong here, IMO.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Well, Then It's Doctored

Somebody on YouTube doctored it and then it was reposted here. We agree it does not belong here.

[Glamrock]

24. Thanks for posting the video.

I give a shit what it's titled. What? Like we here at DU are going to be fooled? "Oh, this video title says she's a leftist. Boy, I guess I was wrong all along." I mean gimme a break. I just wanted to see her matched out. Thanks for taking the time to find it and post it Tanuki.

[stevenleser]

28. I'm with you. Of course I would be happy if we could find another version of the video without

the idiotic freeper title but it's better to have the video than not.

[get the red out]

8. I hope she learned

As much of a RW kiss-ass as she is, they will push her out in a minute. How's that working out for you Andrea?

[gordianot]

15. I truly despise what Trump and company are doing to News Media but......

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

I hope they continue to throw Andrea Mitchell out of the room on her bony ass. The night the FBI dropped the Wiener email ruse her demeanor was particularly disgusting. I noticed flash looks of pure disdain from Hillary Clinton while Mitchell badgered her with typical inane comments (not just questions). In that moment I gained a new respect for Hillary. Andrea celebrates her celebrity statues she expect you to show deference to her celebrity reporting. Something about her demeanor reminds me of the Sea Hag from the Popeye cartoons.

[Cosmocat]

17. Fuck Andrea Mitchell

Let's be clear about several things.

1) There are few more glaring examples of TRULY sold out "elitist" DC media people than Andrea Mitchell, who has spent two decades now being a not so subtle republican tool that has LONG enabled the country's slide into fascism.
2) She spent 1 1/2 years doing her nonstop, haughty, dismissive, judgemental, negative framing of HRC as a candidate for POTUS. She actively played a role in allowing 45 to be 45.
3) This current show boating is reflective of her seeing MSNBC making moves in the day time lineup and knowing that she is literally a talentless, sputtering buffoon, desperate to try to save her gig.

Yeah, it is ridiculous what the current state of things are with the State Department, but Andrea fucking Mitchell isn't some kind of warrior of truth and justice here.

Fuck her.

[PJMcK]

18. Well said, Cosmocat.

Your final sentence says it all.

[Paladin]

23. Amen, Cosmocat. Fuck Andrea Mitchell.

Her crazed fixation on Hillary's emails throughout the campaign is something I regard as unforgivable. Why she still has a job is beyond understanding.

[KatyMan]

44. A stunt for creditbility perhaps?

The Greenspans probably summer with the Tillersons...

[Johonny]

26. They wanted to give her more time to cover Hillary's emails

[stevenleser]

29. I disagree with the attacks here on Mitchell even as I agree with much of their substance.

If/when Trump and his administration turns off people that can help us, we need them.

To hell with punishing them for past transgressions. The more on the bandwagon right now the better.

Trump and crew are dangerous and need to be opposed and removed if possible.

[Hortensis]

48. True. Now that H and the Dems are off stage, Andrea's

knife can be useful wielded in other directions. I haven't been listening to her, but she just as clearly carries water for the right as Scarborough does and will only go so far before turning to apologist mode, though. Definitely an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation.

[malaise]

38. No more free flights for that export name dropper

Ah well

[elmac]

40. bet she voted for sniffles

along with her bankster husband