CNN, tabloid fake news.

Eventhorizon said:
Yeah? Well you are a melopsittacus undulatus. Are we done here?
Click to expand...

Still no proof...still no facts...just more personal attacks because that’s all you got.
Proof.
 
Capture.webp
 
Capture.webp
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu
@Stu
What has Jeff Sessions and now David Nunez (sp?) had to recuse themselves from?
Why would the former National Security Advisor who had access to all our sensitive documents want immunity for testimony on what?
Surely it’s all fake right?
 
Skarekrow said:
What is it that they are investigating @Stu?
What is the House, Senate, and FBI all investigating anyhow?
Click to expand...
its all fake, there is no investigation, no MSM, no Congress, no country, no world...we are all plugged into an electric generator at the service of a soulless machine.
 
Stu said:
its all fake, there is no investigation, no MSM, no Congress, no country, no world...we are all plugged into an electric generator at the service of a soulless machine.
Click to expand...

That’s pretty much what I though.
I’m probably in a padded room somewhere drooling on myself, in all actuality this is all just in my head.
Maybe it’s mass-mind control!
Seems very plausible...much more plausible than a Billionaire reality TV second-tier star and his Billionaire buddies selling out America.
 
Stu said:
View attachment 35074
Click to expand...
The Rice story is valid.
I'll be honest with you. It's good that Tump is being investigated. If there is actual reason to believe he influenced the election like this, yes we need to know. So let's see what turns up. Let's be prepared for and recognize though the story could be b.s. as well. I currently believe it's b.s. but admit I...like the rest of the world, simply can't say right now.

The Rice story is also a story that needs to be investigated. Suggesting anything else shows a complete unchecked bias. Honestly I have no interest in communicating with anyone that suggests otherwise.
 
Stu said:
its all fake, there is no investigation, no MSM, no Congress, no country, no world...we are all plugged into an electric generator at the service of a soulless machine.
Click to expand...
An investigation is not a conviction of wrong doing. I'm not sure how you are confusing this.
If I say you raped my dog and the police investigate you for it, does it mean you raped my dog or does it mean I have accused you of it?
 
The problem with investigating Rice is that her previous position required her to make subjective calls on objective evidence. There would have to be a witness or solid evidence to show that she gave classified information to persons or a person who did not have clearance. Given that the O'Bama Admin admits to spreading intel about the collusion investigation to shield it from being quashed by those being investigated there may well be evidence. But if there is proof of collusion who do you punish, and why.
I think the bigger issue is the vulnerability of our public discourse to manipulation. This is nothing new but a broader understanding of how it happens and why would be helpful.
 
Eventhorizon said:
An investigation is not a conviction of wrong doing. I'm not sure how you are confusing this.
If I say you raped my dog and the police investigate you for it, does it mean you raped my dog or does it mean I have accused you of it?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't really mean that you are obsessed with beastiality?
 
Stu said:
The problem with investigating Rice is that her previous position required her to make subjective calls on objective evidence. There would have to be a witness or solid evidence to show that she gave classified information to persons or a person who did not have clearance. Given that the O'Bama Admin admits to spreading intel about the collusion investigation to shield it from being quashed by those being investigated there may well be evidence. But if there is proof of collusion who do you punish, and why.
I think the bigger issue is the vulnerability of our public discourse to manipulation. This is nothing new but a broader understanding of how it happens and why would be helpful.
Click to expand...
Fine. I am not in disagreement. Either way I want to know what happened and why and whether it infringes on Americans rights. In my view currently, the Rice story is intertwined with the Trump Russia investigation. It can only serve to provide a better overall understanding of what happened here regardless of how it turns out.
 

header-menu.png



Why Is CNN Refuting The Susan Rice Story It Refuses To Cover?
CNN has decided to debunk the story about Susan Rice unmasking information on citizens close to Donald Trump before reporting on it.
APRIL 4, 2017 By Mollie Hemingway
For months, CNN has been all over stories that attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency by suggesting ties to Russia. It would be impossible to catalogue the hourly drumbeat of “new” stories on this angle that have gone on for months, despite the lack of named sources or actual evidence.

The cable news outlet heavily pushed the infamous “Russian dossier” story that was quickly harmed by BuzzFeed showing how dubious to the point of laughable the dossier was. The network’s obsession extends to running red-washed photoshopped graphics of Trump advisors in front of St. Basil’s. The Russia scare headlines run into the dozens each and every day.

A couple weeks ago, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee publicly stated that he’d seen dozens of reports that were disseminated widely in the intelligence agencies featuring unmasked information on people close to Trump. He stated that these reports were of little to no intelligence value, so that the unmasking was disconcerting. He also stated that these reports had nothing to do with Russia.

Devin Nunes, the Intel chair, wasn’t speaking anonymously. He was being specific about what he saw and what concerned him. Surely you would think the network that breathlessly reported what turned out to be an easily debunked dossier would understand the significance. Surely you would be wrong.

The media that gets upset when they are called the opposition by President Trump rushed to emphasize the really important parts of a story about intelligence collection of political opponents. I joke. They instead focused on the fact that Nunes was a Republican and supported Trump and their opinion that he shouldn’t have told the White House.

Yesterday, the news broke at multiple outlets that the unmasking wasn’t done by a low-level official at an intelligence agency, but by Susan Rice herself. She was President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor. All of a sudden people began admitting that Nunes was right that information on political opponents had been collected, unmasked, and disseminated, but they turned to downplaying this as significant news.

This is a media-wide problem, but no one has been more shameless about this than CNN, which formerly at least attempted to position itself as politically neutral. CNN has decided to declare the news story “fake” because of this report from former Obama political appointee Jim Sciutto (who was a colleague of Susan Rice at the Obama State Department), who now covers the Republican administration:

Screen-Shot-2017-04-04-at-10.43.31-AM.png


Wait, wait, wait, wait. Slow down here. A person close to Rice said she did nothing wrong? Well this changes … oh wow, this changes … nothing. I mean, people close to Mike Flynn said he did nothing wrong, and they even had quite the case, but I don’t recall Sciutto either running with that angle, or believing such an angle “debunked” the coordinated leak campaign against Trump he was recipient of.

Of course Susan Rice’s family and friends will rush to her defense. That’s what friends are for. But that doesn’t “debunk” a story. The idea that you wouldn’t pursue this story and all of the interesting questions raised by it is an affront to journalism. But that seems to be the road CNN has chosen to go down. A few examples:

Screen-Shot-2017-04-04-at-10.27.31-AM.png


Screen-Shot-2017-04-04-at-11.12.08-AM.png

Don Lemon appears to read directly from the first draft of Democratic National Committee talking points:


CNN should really kill its chyrons before they kill CNN’s credibility:

Screen-Shot-2017-04-04-at-10.33.33-AM.png


My favorite thing about Chris Cillizza was that time he wrote the piece attacking the Trump campaign headlined “Can we just stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s health now?” about two minutes before Hillary Clinton’s limp body was shoved into a van. My second favorite thing is that he’s now “editor-at-large” at CNN. He says of the major Rice news, “Trump just keeps creating smokescreens to mask his Russia problem.”

Anderson Cooper and Jim Sciutto team up here to push the “ginned up as a distraction” talking point:


Here’s Jim Sciutto with the Democratic National Committee talking points after they’ve gone through a few rounds of editing from Ben Rhodes. The lack of balance in this report would be funny if it didn’t deal with national security and civil liberties:


To make the case, as CNN’s reporters and anchors sometimes try to, that Donald Trump’s comments against the press are intemperate and irresponsible, you simply can’t prove him right. CNN has been given a chance to restore seriously damaged credibility and a reputation that it strongly favors Democrats and strongly opposes anything Donald Trump says or does. They should reconsider whether their turn to hyperpartisanship is in the long term interests of their company or the country. Right now, they’re a joke.

Ari Fleischer offered a few sample questions that real journalists would be interested in asking if they were interested in real journalism:

If I were a reporter, I would want to know why Rice sought the unmasking. The FBI is investigating possible Trump collision [sic], not the WH.

How often did she ask? What reasons did she give? (Each request is tracked and catalogued in writing by the NSA. A procedure exists.)

The info would have been provided ONLY to her as the requester. It is highly classified. Did she share it? With whom? Why?

If she shared it with anyone, why did she do so? What did they do with it? Did they give it to the media or tell media about it?

One of the reasons we live in a polarized era is because too many reporters look the other way at issues like this. Bias is real.

It’s not too late. The press knows how to dig and get answers. I hope they do so.

It takes a little bit more work than reporting what a friend of Susan Rice anonymously says in her defense, or putting “fake news!” in the chyron, but it’s worth the effort.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway






By Taboola


By Taboola

by Taboola
Promoted Links
We Recommend

Mary Katharine Ham: 'Welcome to Your World' Obama

BOMBSHELL: The Obama Spying Scandal Started Long Before
 
CNN- "COMEYS BOMBSHELL"
Apparently CNN thinks the fact Trump asked Comey to see his way past the Flynn investigation and that he requested loyalty as news. Which it's not because we already knew this. Not only that, none of it's illegal. So here's CNN trying to make a mountain out of an anthill yet again.
CNN, fake news at its best.
 
Who else can't wait for Comey's testimony? They need to make this thing a pay per view. Testimania! Here comes James Comey with a steel chair!

(I'm not really expecting anything to come of this.)
 
Ummm... he's already started and that's what I was referring to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top