Archive for the ‘CNN’ category

CNN Distances Itself From Donna Brazile Over Leaked Questions

October 31, 2016

CNN Distances Itself From Donna Brazile Over Leaked Questions, Truth Revolt, Mark Tapson, October 31, 2016

(But first, a word from her sponsor:

— DM)

donna_brazille_at_tulane_2009

Yet again, Wikileaks has exposed Democratic malfeasance so undeniable that even the Clinton News Network can’t avoid acknowledging it.

CNN says it is “completely uncomfortable” with hacked emails showing that former contributor and interim DNC chair Donna Brazile shared questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary — so uncomfortable that the network has accepted her resignation, according to Politico.

Those damning emails show that Brazile, who had repeatedly tried to divert blame by suggesting that the emails might have been altered or forged, shared with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Hillary before the March CNN Democratic debate in Flint, and that she also shared with them a possible question prior to a CNN town hall in March.

CNN spokesperson Lauren Pratapas said in a statement that the network had accepted Brazile’s resignation:

On October 14th, CNN accepted Donna Brazile’s resignation as a CNN contributor. (Her deal had previously been suspended in July when she became the interim head of the DNC.) CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate. We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.

Brazile tweeted thanks to CNN and wished her former colleagues “Godspeed.”

Politico noted that a CNN employee suggested Brazile may have met the woman who was supposed to pose the question about lead poisoning during a service event the day before the debate.

As for the town hall question, emails obtained by POLITICO seem to point to Roland Martin, a co-moderator of the Town Hall, as its source.

CNN: It Is Illegal For Voters To Possess Wikileaks Material

October 17, 2016

CNN: It Is Illegal For Voters To Possess Wikileaks Material, Jonathan Turley Blog, Jonathan Turley, October 17, 2016

There was an interesting segment on CNN last week where CNN anchor Chris Cuomo reminds viewers for it is illegal for them to “possess” Wikileaks material and that, as a result, they will have to rely on the media to tell them what is in these documents. The legal assertion is dubious, but the political implications are even more concerning. Polls show that many voters view the media as biased and this is a particularly strong view among supporters of Donald Trump who view CNN and other networks openly supporting Clinton or attacking Trump. More importantly, the mainstream media has reported relatively little from the Wikileaks material and has not delved deeply into their implications, including embarrassing emails showing reporters coordinating with the Clinton campaign and supposedly “neutral” media figures like Donna Brazile, formerly with CNN, allegedly slipping advance question material to Hillary Clinton. The credibility of the media is at an all-time low and most voters hardly feel comfortable with this material being reported second-hand or interpreted by the mainstream media. So is it really illegal for voters to have this material?


Cuomo was about to discuss embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s inbox but he stopped to remind viewers “remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents,” Cuomo says. “It’s different for the media, so everything you’re learning about this, you’re learning from us.”

First, the criticism of Cuomo as trying to keep people from reading this material (which is damaging to Clinton) seems a bit far-fetched. It is more likely that he felt obligated to disclose the uncertain legal status of such documents. However, he overstated the case in my view.

It is true that possession of stolen items is a crime and documents can be treated as stolen items. However, this material has already been released and it is doubtful that downloading widely available material (particularly in a matter of great public interest) would be seen as prosecutable possession. Whoever had original possession has released them widely to the public like throwing copies out a window by the thousands. Whatever crime is alleged, it will be directed at the original hacker and not the public. Just downloading and reading public available material is unlikely to be viewed as a crime unless you use material to steal someone’s identity or commit a collateral crime. Otherwise, possession of the Pentagon Papers would lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of citizens.

More importantly, most people do not downloading [Sic] these documents but read them on line and there is no actionable crime in reading the material from any of the myriad of sites featuring the Wikileaks documents.

Cuomo is right about status of reporters being clear and protected. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the media is allowed to publish material that may have been obtained illegally and declared a law unconstitutional to the extent that it would make such media use unlawful. The Court reaffirmed the need to protect the first amendment interests and took particular note of the fact that the material was a matter of public interest:

“The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment insofar as the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of “public concern,” an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court’s decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment, thereby chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day.”

While technical arguments could be made that downloading is a form of possession of stolen documents, it is a dubious argument when the material is widely distributed and a matter of public interest. The weight of the existing case law militates heavily against the legal threat described on CNN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A

 

CNN now literally putting words in Donald Trump’s mouth

September 20, 2016

CNN now literally putting words in Donald Trump’s mouth, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, September 20, 2016

Somebody in the production booth had to consciously make the decision to add in a word which Trump did not utter and, even more to the point, put it in quotes so it looked like an exact transcript of what the candidate said. There’s simply no way that the reasonable observer could write that off as an accident.

***********************

What’s going on at CNN in terms of their “hard news” editing process these days? The latest questionable achievement in journalism coming out of Atlanta caught my attention by way of Scott Adams’ Twitter feed yesterday, highlighting an instance where The Most Trusted Name in News ran a chyron which rather pointedly edited comments made by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. While discussing the issue of profiling and once again using Israel as an example, The Donald failed to use a word which would have made the comment far more incendiary to the Left, so CNN took the liberty of inserting it for him.

cswsuplukaanihe

@CNN adds the word “racial” to Trump’s quote. Deeply irresponsible. Crosses the line.

CNN Admits to Giving Hillary Clinton “a Free Ride”

August 6, 2016

CNN Admits to Giving Hillary Clinton “a Free Ride” Boredom Cafe via YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=youtu.be

Corey Lewandowski Sparks CNN Panel Meltdown With Two Simple Words on Obama: “Harvard Transcripts”

August 3, 2016

Corey Lewandowski Sparks CNN Panel Meltdown With Two Simple Words on Obama: “Harvard Transcripts”, Independent Journal, August 3, 2016

(Referenced videos are at the link. — DM)

CNN contributor Corey Lewandowski used to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager.

Tuesday night on CNN, he showed America what that means, dredging up a request on President Obama’s college transcripts and asking whether he got into Harvard as a U.S. citizen.

Let’s just say two other people on the CNN panel were pissed at him for bringing it up, and the discussion got heated in a hurry, with one panelist telling Lewandowski:

“I’m going to Beyonce you: Boy, bye.”

Watch the full video above, and read the transcript below, via Media Matters:

COREY LEWANDOWSKI: I just think it’s important to remember, right, that the president of the United States has an obligation to still govern the country. And if he wants to engage in partisan politics, I don’t think this is the right venue for it. He wants to go on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton, absolutely he has the right to do that.

But that also means he becomes fair game for any retort that Donald Trump wants to put on him. And I just think that the decorum of the presidency of the United States, the East Room is not the place to engage in those partisan attacks.

ANGELA RYE: Don, let me just respond, really quickly to this. Let me be very clear on this. Donald Trump has been attacking the president long before he began campaigning for this important office. He is the one who was the spokesperson for the birther movement, and was calling for transcripts for — and saying the president was an affirmative action admittee of Harvard. So let’s —

LEWANDOWSKI: Did he ever release his transcripts from Harvard?

RYE: By the way, tell me about those tax returns, while you’re at it.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well you raised the issue, i’m just asking. You raised the issue, did he ever release his transcripts or his admission to Harvard University? You raised the issue, so just “yes,” or “no.”

RYE: Corey? Just a moment, I’m going to Beyonce you. Boy, bye. You just so out of line right now, tell your candidate to release his tax returns.

LEWANDOWSKI: Don’t raise the issue if you don’t want to address it.

RYE: Two words, tax returns. Tax returns.

LEWANDOWSKI: Harvard University transcripts. You raised the issue, did he ever release them?

CNN Reveals The TRUE Victims Of ISIS Raid On French Church

July 27, 2016

CNN Reveals The TRUE Victims Of ISIS Raid On French Church, Daily Caller, Rachel Stoltsoos, July 26, 2016

Muslims are the true target of the latest terror attack on a Catholic church in France, according to CNN.

In the name of the Islamic State, two Muslim men stormed a Catholic mass in Normandy Monday, took two parishioners and two nuns hostage, delivered a sermon in Arabic at the altar and then slit the throat of an elderly Catholic priest before police shot them dead. One of the hostages is in critical condition.

At least one Catholic person is dead, but according to CNN it’s Muslims in Europe who should be afraid.

“The goal in going after such a provocative target? To trigger a backlash against Muslims in France and drive the country’s Muslims into the recruiting arms of the Islamic State,” CNN surmises.

Although France is a deeply secular country, CNN concludes the attack is especially provocative because Catholicism is “still deeply entwined in the national fabric.” By attacking churches, the logic goes, ISIS is hoping to fan the flames of a religious war that will ultimately result in persecution of Muslims, which in turn will drive them right into the arms of ISIS.

The tactic is working, according to CNN, which cites a 223 percent rise in the number of anti-Muslim threats and attacks last year reported by the French Human Rights Commission. The publication does go on to discuss at length the genocide ISIS is committing against Christians in its territory, but the clear implication is that Muslims, not Christians, are threatened in Europe.

“In urging attacks on churches, ISIS is trying to eliminate what it calls the ‘grey zone’ for Muslims in the West by provoking a far-right backlash,” reports CNN. “A drumbeat of attacks in France has led to a groundswell of anti-Muslim anger, which is being stoked and exploited by far-right politicians.”

Donald Trump vs. CNN: Score One for Donald

June 30, 2016

Donald Trump vs. CNN: Score One for Donald, Town HallEmmett Tyrrel, June 30, 2016

Trump and CNN

WASHINGTON — I see that CNN is calling upon the good offices of Mr. Potato Head to refute Donald Trump’s evisceration of Hillary Clinton in his speech last Wednesday. Mr. Potato Head is very indignant that Peter Schweizer has written a book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” demonstrating that a pattern of corruption exists in the relationship between The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department. He says that pattern of corruption does not establish the Clintons’ guilt. Well, an author can only do so much. Schweizer has written a convincing book about the Clintons’ corruption. The rest is left to the courts, which have yet to get the Clintons’ case, but my guess is they will have at the Clintons soon enough.

You might recall that Mr. Potato Head, as he was called some 20 years ago by The American Spectator, is David Gergen. Two decades ago he was employed by the Clinton White House, and he apparently still works for them at least part-time. On CNN this past week Gergen looked even more like Mr. Potato Head than he did when he worked in the White House. I remember him calling me some time in the early 1990s and complaining that we did not give him a “heads-up” on our Troopergate stories. He asked me if I would do so in the future. I generously offered to send him subscription information but offered no special rate — not even our student rate. The government of the United States could pay for its subscription to The American Spectator, as it paid for Bill Clinton’s subscriptions to “Playboy” and “Hustler.” Perhaps it could’ve paid for two subscriptions!

Mr. Potato Head was in high dudgeon last week over Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash,” claiming the book had been “discredited.” Well, it was used as a source by The New York Times and the Washington Post. They relied on it heavily for stories about the Clintons’ corruption, and it has sold quite well.

Mr. Potato Head was working with CNN’s posse comitatus to bring down Trump for his revelations about Crooked Hillary, but it is they — the so-called fact-checkers at CNN — who were brought down.

The CNN fact-checkers deemed Trump in error for claiming that the continuing bloodshed in Syria was due to Clinton’s support of regime change. But Trump never made that claim. All he charged was that her support for regime change began Syria’s descent into a bloody civil war. He did not say that she had a hand in the ongoing bloodshed. There is a significant difference. And, she actually bragged about what she did. “Yes, when I was secretary of state,” she boasted, “I did urge along with the Department of Defense and the CIA that we seek out, vet and train and arm Syrian opposition figures so that they could defend themselves against Assad.” That quote was actually broadcast during the CNN Democratic presidential debate in April. The Syrian death toll is now well over 250,000.

The CNN fact-checkers assailed Trump again for claiming the U.S. trade deficit with China soared by 40 percent while Clinton was secretary of state. This, the fact-checkers said, is “exaggerated.” Unfortunately for them we have at our disposal the U.S. Census Bureau, which in its report “Trade In Goods With China” asseverated that from 2009 to 2012 the trade deficit with China increased by almost $89 billion, or 39 percent. So Trump’s exaggeration was off by one percentage point.

Finally, CNN’s crack team of fact-checkers rated Trump in error for saying that Clinton’s State Department refused all requests for additional security in Benghazi. He said the State Department received “hundreds and hundreds of requests for security. … Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all.” Well, there were few security personnel on the ground when Ambassador Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. In the felicitously titled Washington Post column “Fact Checker,” Glenn Kessler claims that 581 documents have been found that deal with the security situation at Benghazi. The number is likely to climb higher if classified documents are taken into account. I have found six other open-source accounts of lax security in Benghazi, among them one from January 15, 2014 titled “Democrats Join GOP To Blame State In Benghazi.” It reported: “Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks after having made requests for more security to the State Department. State has acknowledged that security was not adequate.”

After last week’s speech, it appears that Donald Trump’s charges against Hillary Clinton are absolutely copper-bottomed. CNN’s “fact-checkers” should be retired. Like all politicians, Trump may occasionally exaggerate a trivial matter. But Clinton lies repeatedly on things that matter.