CNN feigns outrage and offense over the Trump supporters chanting "CNN sucks!" at rallies. It's absolutely inexcusable for a news station in the United States to affect the coverage of an election through being misleading. There is a reason Trump supporters chant “CNN sucks!” CNN, populated mostly by elitist liberals, plays it off like the Trump supporters just don’t get it – that they are just doing hard reporting on Trump? Really? By being dishonest? By giving Trump disproportionately negative, constant coverage while minimizing Hillary Clinton and her big bag of scandals – especially from Wikileaks?
You see, Trump supporters aren’t stupid. They see the coverage is biased against their candidate. Did they ever notice they aren’t getting hate from Hillary supporters? It’s not because Hillary supporters are better people who respect the free press. It’s because Hillary supporters realize that if they tune into CNN, they aren’t going to see their candidate bashed (with the exception of the Trump surrogates/GOP guests). What they are going to see is Trump get ripped apart, and while there is some negative coverage of Hillary, it will be minimal relevant to negative coverage of Trump. The panels are frequently stacked 7-1 or 6-2 against Trump because the Trump people aren't just fighting the Clinton surrogates on the panel, they are fighting the professional political analysts who lean in Hillary's favor.
The irony of ironies is that CNN considers Trump dishonest and instituted a policy they have never before used on any other candidate running for office. They began to "fact check" him in the chyrons on the bottom of the screen. For example:
Trump says he won debate (He didn't)
I have one:
CNN doesn't lie (They do)
This is lengthy and addresses CNN's lies, cutting mic off/losing feed at certain points, and also their coziness with the Clinton campaign.
CNN'S JEFFREY TOOBIN PLAYS LIGHT OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS GETTING ATTACKED IN SAN JOSE
When Trump held a rally in San Jose in June, his supporters were hunted down and attacked as they left and tried to make their way to their cars. They discussed it on CNN that evening, and Don Lemon had on two liberals - Bob Beckel and (senior legal analyst) Jeffrey Toobin. Both down played the violence:
The key part of what Beckel said:
It reflects badly on people who are against Trump but you'll get that kind of thing when you get inflammatory statements like Trump makes and you're going to find people in any group of protesters, you're going to have a percentage of people who are just very angry and out of control.
Then we fast forward in the conversation to Toobin and Trump supporter Kayleigh Mcenany:
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Well, I'd just like to say - I mean, let's just not get carried away. You know, this - in the United States, this kind of protest has gone on for hundreds of years. It's not that big a deal, a bunch of people like the guy got his hat knocked off? I mean, you know, he shouldn't have his hat knocked off, but let's not, you know -
MCENANY: The last guy who got his hat knocked off and picked it up and tried to get it back was beaten to a pulp and was taken off the scene with blood rushing down his face. That's what happened to the last guy who tried to get his hat back I think was in Costa Mesa, California.
TOOBIN: Yeah, I mean, there have been tens of thousands of people at these rallies. One person getting hurt is unacceptable but it's one person. I just don't think anybody should, you know, can think that this is a bigger deal than it is.
What if that one person was Jeffrey Toobin or someone he loved and cared about? Would it be a big deal then?
(Transcript from Newsbusters)
Yeah, you watch this video of Trump supporters getting attacked. Just a guy getting his hat knocked off. This from CNN's legal analyst.
For the record, CNN wrote an article on it, but it was light on substance compared to other news networks and seemed to down play the full scale of what happened:
As Trump supporters exited the rally, protesters shouted insults at them and accused them of being racists.
As the demonstrators bunched around the event, riot police pushed many of them back. A woman made it through the protesters, taunted them and waved her middle finger back to their screams. She was cornered and egged immediately.
Scuffles broke out between pro- and anti-Trump demonstrators. At one point, a man was sucker-punched and knocked to the ground and police arrested his assailant. In another instance, demonstrators closed in on a Trump supporter and started punching him in the face, and a Trump protester tried to protect the man being attacked and help him and other Trump supporters move safely through the crowd.
(Believe it or not, it took three reporters to write that article.)
Contrary to ABC, for example, who did a phenomenal job covering it, this is sad. They made it sound like it was a mutual fight as opposed to what it was - Trump supporters being hunted down. It's the language like, "Scuffles broke out between pro- and anti- Trump demonstrators." They minimized the woman getting attacked because she "taunted them and waved her middle finger."
ANDERSON COOPER AND DON LEMON BOTH CAUGHT LYING ABOUT HILLARY LAUGHING ON TAPE OVER GETTING OFF A RAPIST OF A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL GIRL OFF
First example was with Anderson Cooper in May of 2016. Trump surrogate Kayleigh McEnany brought up that Hillary Clinton, when she was working as an attorney, defended the rapist of 12 year old Kathy Shelton by accusing 12 year old Kathy Shelton of seeking out older men and "fantasizing":
Clinton claimed in an affidavit she had received information that Shelton was emotionally unstable and had a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.
"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way."
Moreover, in this same affidavit, Clinton expounds:
"I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior."
Hillary was later heard on a tape discussing this case and laughing.
Anderson Cooper proclaimed the story was not corroborated - especially not on CNN he said.
First of all, Hillary mentioned this case in her memoir in 2003. Second of all, the story was corroborated by the Washington Free Beacon who published the audio of Hillary discussing the case and laughing. Second of all, an interview was done with The Daily Beast's Josh Rogin. At that point, Kathy Shelton declined to give her name, but she confirmed that the tapes were referring to her, telling Rogin that "Hillary took me through hell." When Kayleigh brought this up, Anderson Cooper and the liberal pundits on the panel went into denial. Cooper said:
“We haven’t corroborated any of this, so I just think you should be very—” Cooper started. “It’s widely reported,” McEnany said. “It’s widely reported.” -- “Widely reported. So’s the National Enquirer, widely reported. Widely reported doesn’t mean anything,” Cooper said. “Not on this network, I would point out.”
The kicker - this audio wasn't just corroborated by the Washington Free Beacon and The Daily Beast -IT
WAS CORROBORATED WITH A STORY ON CNN on The Lead With Jake Tapper in 2014!!!
Thankfully, Mary Katherine Ham was on the panel and confirmed that Kayleigh was telling the truth:
Hold on, Kayleigh’s right about the audio,” Ham said. “The audio was broken by the Free Beacon more than a year ago. It was from the Clinton Library. It was dug up by a reporter there, so there is actual evidence here of her speaking about this.” -- “The full breadth and depth of what’s been said tonight, though, is not,” Rye snapped. She went on to guess that such charges against Clinton wouldn’t play well with women in the polls.
VIDEO OF THIS:
After Cooper was made a fool of, you would absolutely think that CNN would not make that mistake again. Wouldn't you? Wrong! What's so amazing about this is the fact that the occurred this October - five whole months after the Cooper incident! Kathy Shelton, by this point, had publicly spoken out and done interviews. This is AFTER she was a guest at the second debate. No one, not even Hillary Clinton herself, was disputing that tape. This needs to get more attention because he blatantly lied on television and used the biased Politifact to do it contradicting a report on his own network!
CNN CLAIMS THE SECRET SERVICE TALKED TO DONALD TRUMP REGARDING 2ND AMENDMENT COMMENTS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON
In August of 2016, Trump made a comment at a rally which the media took to mean he was inciting violence against Hillary Clinton:
"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said. "But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied."
Donald Trump was interviewed by Sean Hannity that day and said that wasn't what he meant. The campaign also put out a statement:
Trump defended his comments Tuesday, insisting that he was telling his supporters to use the power of their vote to stop Clinton from appointing justices who could restrict their Second Amendment rights.
"This is a political movement. This is a strong political movement, the Second Amendment," Trump said to Fox News' Sean Hannity. "And there can be no other interpretation. Even reporters have told me. I mean, give me a break."
Jason Miller, Trump's senior communications adviser, said in a statement that Trump was merely talking about Second Amendment supporters large influence as a group.
"It's called the power of unification -- 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump," he said.
The next day, CNN put out an article claiming that the Secret Service had talked to Donald Trump:
(CNN)A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.
"There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN. But it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.
The campaign told the USSS that Donald Trump did not intend to incite violence, according to the official.
"No such meeting or conversation ever happened," Trump tweeted in response to CNN's report.
If you read further into the article, you will see this:
The Secret Service's communications director Cathy Milhoan has not confirmed the conversations between the campaign and the Secret Service, but said in a statement Tuesday that "the U.S. Secret Service is aware of Mr. Trump's comments."
So CNN's printed an article saying they have a confirmation from an official in the Secret Service that the Secret Service had spoken to Trump. However, the Secret Service communications director didn't confirm it and Trump denied it. Reuters then proceeded to publish an article proving Trump correct:
A federal official on Wednesday said the U.S. Secret Service had not formally spoken with Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign regarding his suggestion a day earlier that gun rights activists could stop Democratic rival Hillary Clinton from curtailing their access to firearms.
Following Trump's comment at a rally on Tuesday in which he suggested that gun rights activists could stop Clinton from appointing liberal anti-gun justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.
Earlier CNN had reported that there had been multiple conversations between the campaign and the agency.
CNN CLAIMS THAT THE GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA TOLD TRUMP NOT TO VISIT
(Credit to American Thinker)
The transcripts provided are from the American Thinker article:
On August 21, 2016, Dana Bash interviewed the Governor of Louisiana after Trump and Pence visited and after the horrible flooding. Prior to Trump's visit, the Governor said:
"Donald Trump hasn’t called the governor to inform him of his visit," a spokesman for Edwards' office said in a statement Thursday evening. "We welcome him to LA but not for a photo-op. Instead we hope he’ll consider volunteering or making a sizable donation to the LA Flood Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm."
Trump went with Pence and delivered a truck full of supplies and made a $100,000 donation.
However, Dana Bash asked the Governor:
So,um, Donald Trump and Mike Pence came down to Baton Rouge on Friday. You dismissed the visit as a photo op and you said you wished that Donald Trump would make a donation to a relief organization instead. We did, by the way, check with the campaign and they said Trump made a $100,000 donation to the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church where he visited. But, uh, here’s what your fellow Democrat, former Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu said about the visit.
Mary Landrieu thanked Trump and Pence for their visit saying that it brought attention to a big problem their state was trying to deal with.
Bash then asked her:
So, governor, why is she wrong?
Anyway, see the lie? She manipulated the language! He didn't dismiss the visit as a photo op - he said he didn't want it made into a photo op with Trump coming down, touring, and not helping. Mary Landrieu wasn't wrong by the criteria set forth by the Governor.
The Governor responded:
She’s not. But you mischaracterized what I said. I didn’t dismiss his trip as a photo op. Before he came down, I said we welcome him here and we want him to be helpful and we hope it didn’t turn into a mere photo op. So you got the story backwards.
NUMBER 5 (PART I)
CNN ATTACKS TRUMP FOR CALLING THE NYC BOMBING A "BOMB" BEFORE THEY RECEIVED OFFICIAL WORD THAT IT WAS A BOMB. HILLARY CLINTON ALSO CALLED IT A BOMB, BUT CNN EDITS TAPE ON JAKE TAPPER TO REMOVE HER SAYING THAT.
On September 17, 2016, a bomb went off in NYC. Donald Trump was briefed about what the media was calling an "explosion" at the time. Trump got off his plane and said:
Thank you everybody! Wow! This is great, in a hanger yet, right, in a hanger! Boy oh boy. It's a movement like they haven't seen before. I wanted to tell you that, just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York, and nobody knows exactly what's going on, but boy, we are living in a time...we better get very tough, folks, we better get very, very tough. It just happened, so we'll find out, but it's, it's a terrible thing that's going on in our world and and in our country, and we are going to get tough and smart and vigilant. And we're gonna end it. We're gonna end it. So we'll see what it is. We'll see what it is is.
The media went ballistic that Trump called it a bomb before they did in an attempt to make him seem to quick to react and unpresidential. Hillary also called it a bomb before there was confirmation of it being a bomb, yet Don Lemon had a commentator on talking about how her response was more Presidential.
From CNN's coverage via one of their embeds:
Jeremy Diamond @JDiamond1 5h5 hours ago
Trump just called early reports of an explosion in New York a "bomb." No confirmation of that yet. "We've got to get very tough," he says
Jeremy Diamond @JDiamond1 5h5 hours ago
Amid reports of explosion in NYC - which Trump called, w/o confirmed reports, a "bomb" - Trump doing usual political attacks against Clinton
Jeremy Diamond @JDiamond1 4h4 hours ago Colorado Springs, CO
Before officials confirm cause of explosion, Trump calls it a "bomb" 30 mins after initial reports:
Colorado Springs, Colorado (CNN)Donald Trump on Saturday night quickly described early reports of an explosion in New York by telling his supporters here that a "bomb went off" in that city.
Trump made the statement before local officials had publicly confirmed details of the incident or what caused the explosion. Typically, national political figures use caution when describing unfolding situations and law enforcement actions.
"Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what's going on," Trump said at a campaign rally here.
Two hours after Trump spoke, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said the explosion "was an intentional act."
But, he said, "there is no evidence at this point of a terror connection." And the city's police commissioner, James O'Neill, said the "exact nature and cause" of the blast "has not yet been determined."
The Trump campaign did not respond to numerous requests for comment Saturday night on whether Trump had any evidence the explosion was a bomb or whether he was in contact with NYC officials.
Trump's Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, spoke to reporters in White Plains nearly two hours after the explosion and similarly called the incident a "bombing."
Clinton said she had been in touch with various New York City officials. She declined to answer a question about what effect, if any, the explosion would have on the 2016 race.
It is not until paragraphs further in the article that he mentions Trump was briefed prior to getting off the plane.
Note he does add the "no one knows exactly what is going on," but he doesn't add "we'll see what it is."
Another one to round it out too:
Jeremy Diamond @JDiamond1 4h4 hours ago Colorado Springs, CO
.@realDonaldTrump says "bomb" went off in #Chelsea before NYC officials determined cause of explosion:
Hours later, Jeremy back at it:
He retweeted and responded to:
Stephen Miller Verified account @redsteeze
Stephen Miller Retweeted Jeremy Diamond
Your own network sourced FDNY saying IED.
Jeremy Diamond @JDiamond1 2h2 hours ago Manhattan, NY
Jeremy Diamond Retweeted Stephen Miller
Nope. Not before Trump said this.
Once again, just because CNN released info on air after Trump said it, it doesn't mean Trump wasn't given that info in a briefing.
Joshua Chavers @JoshuaChavers 5h5 hours ago
Joshua Chavers Retweeted Ali Vitali
Then Trump announced to a crowd in Colorado that "a bomb went off in New York" Wildly wreckless and irresponsible.
NUMBER 5 (PART II)
CNN’s Jake Tapper Edits out Hillary Clinton’s ‘Bombings’ Remark
CNN's Jake Tapper asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on State of the Union on Sunday morning about the supposed contrast between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their responses to the explosions Saturday in New York, editing out Clinton’s reference to “bombings” to create a false distinction.
Tapper cited Trump referring to a “bomb” in New York, then played a clip of Clinton criticizing him for saying that — leaving out Clinton’s reference, seconds before, to what she called “bombings.”
Here is the Tapper’s question for Christie, with the edited Clinton clip:
Tapper: There is a contrast, I would say, between how you’re speaking about it and how Mr. Trump spoke about it yesterday. He’s being criticized for talking about the New York bomb before local officials or local law enforcement had a chance to do so. He told the Colorado Springs crowd that “a bomb went off in New York, and nobody knows exactly what’s going on” — that’s really just a few minutes after the incident. And his opponent tried to draw a contrast. She waited hours later, until local officials spoke, and then she said this:
Clinton (clip): I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.
Tapper: As a general note, do you think politicians should wait until more information comes in, and should they defer to local official and investigators? Isn’t that what you do as the governor of New Jersey?
Tapper made no mention of Clinton’s similar remark.
Here is the full, relevant exchange between Clinton and reporters on Saturday night, via Liz Kreutz of ABC News and other sources:
Clinton: I’ve breen briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We’ve been in touch with various officials, including the mayor’s office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I’ll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts?
Reporter: Secretary Clinton, Do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump, immediately upon taking the stage tonight, called the explosion in New York a “bomb” …
Clinton: Well, I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. That’s why it’s critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to determine what did happen. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.
CNN ACCUSES TRUMP OF ARGUING FOR "RACIAL PROFILING" WHEN HE JUST SAID "PROFILING" TO COMBAT TERROR ATTACKS:
For two days running, CNN’s coverage of Trump’s comments on the weekend terror bombings in New York City and New Jersey claimed Trump said he favored “racial profiling” to combat terrorism. The network displayed the words in the kinds of quotation marks that generations of journalists have been taught are reserved for the exact words a newsmaker uses.
Most readers understand this. Every reporter and editor with even a modicum of journalistic training understands it. So when CNN chose to put quotation marks around an inflammatory phrase like “racial profiling” — lending credence to Hillary’s shrill charge that the GOP nominee is racist and attracts bigoted supporters — the news staff involved had to know exactly what they were doing.
The words appeared in a CNN “Breaking News” headline about Trump’s remarks, “Trump Says ‘Racial Profiling’ Will Stop Terror.”
But as numerous other news outlets have pointed out, Trump never said the words “racial profiling” during the Fox News interview in question. Race was never mentioned.
Here is what Trump said on “Fox & Friends,” according to the network:
“As you know in Israel they profile, they’ve done an unbelievable job — as good as you can. And they’ll profile, they profile. They see somebody who’s suspicious, they profile, they will take that person and they’ll check [them] out.”
Nowhere did he say “racial profiling.” In fact, CNN itself acknowledged that Trump never called explicitly for racial profiling, noting in a story on Tuesday that “Trump did not say on what attributes he would encourage police to profile possible suspects, but it’s illegal for police to subject US persons to disparate treatment based on their race or other protected status.”
And how did CNN headline that story?
“Donald Trump defends racial profiling in wake of bombs.”
Now, a reasonable person might argue that Trump’s quote about Israel gave the context needed to paraphrase the whole statement on the assumption that Israelis would be profiling radical Islamic terrorists. But as literally anyone who understands the English language knows, profiling for radical Islamists — or even profiling “moderate Muslims” — would have nothing to do with race.
Being Muslim has no more to do with race than being a Catholic, a Presbyterian, or a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.
CNN TOUTS THEIR POST-DEBATE POLLS WHICH OVER SAMPLE DEMOCRATS BY MASSIVE MARGINS BUT THEN TOSSES OUT ONLINE POLLS
CNN's post debate poll after the first debate showed that Hillary Clinton won. However:
Once the Trump hate-fest ended, they released their poll and announced that Hillary won 62% of the vote compared to Trump’s 27%.
“Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night’s debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.”
They plastered their poll all over the internet with the headline “Hillary takes round one!”
Too bad that statement isn’t even close to the truth. If you dig a little deeper, you will see that CNN only sampled 27% of Republicans in the poll, compared to 74% of Democrats and Independents. In fact, a staggering 41% identified as Democrat! CNN only sampled 521 people and 3/4 of them were liberal.
All of the online polls showed Trump as the winner (polls at link), but while CNN touted their poll, they mocked Trump for citing "unscientific" online polls.
ANDERSON COOPERS AC360 LIES ABOUT THE MACHADO SEX TAPE
On September 30, Anderson Cooper's AC360 told a whopper on the air when they did a story responding to Donald Trump's tweets about Alicia Machado.
Alicia Machado was a former Miss Universe who gained too much weight. Trump had a press conference where she worked out in front of the media, but this was as opposed to stripping her of her crown. CBS was his partner in the pageant at the time, and per Trump, was supportive of doing this. CNN, who tried to play holier than thou over this "fat shaming" was present at the press conference. This article from CNN and the transcript and leaked video will expose their hypocrisy:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- When Alicia Machado of Venezuela was named Miss Universe nine months ago, no one could accuse her of being the size of the universe. But as her universe expanded, so did she, putting on nearly 60 pounds.
Indeed, the reigning Miss Universe learned the hard way that an extra 15 or 20 pounds can gain you a ton of publicity. But now she's determined to shed at least 15 pounds, though the loss of her Miss Universe crown is no longer an issue.
"Some people when they have pressure eat too much. Like me. Like Alicia," said Donald Trump, the executive producer of the Miss Universe Pageant.
Since winning the crown, the former Miss Venezuela went from 118 pounds to -- well -- a number that kept growing like the size of the fish that got away.
(THAT SOUNDS LIKE FAT SHAMING, CNN!)
Rumors also surfaced that she might be forced to give up her Miss Universe crown.
But Trump, as co-owner of rights to the pageant, said he would never let that happen. "We had a choice of: termination or do this," he said. "We wanted to do this."
The pageant's meaning of "do this" was for Machado to get her weight down to about 130 pounds. At a recent photo op, Machado -- hardly a blimp at 5-foot-7 -- pedaled a stationary bicycle and jumped rope in front of a pack of photographers and reporters who could themselves use a little training.
"A lot of you folks have weight problems. I hate to tell you," Trump told the rowdy pool of reporters.
A video also emerged of this workout also from Clinton's News Network. Let's look at it and see if Donald Trump treated her terribly. Alicia was smiling and giggling with Donald Trump.
MACHADO: "When did you want you can work out with me."
TRUMP: I'll work out with her anytime she wants I'll tell you.
MACHADO: OK. (Giggles)
A reporter asks what advice Trump would give to Alicia.
TRUMP: Well, I don't think Alicia needs much advice. I will say that last year, before I owned the Miss Universe contest, I went to the Miss Universe pageant last year - it was in Las Vegas - and I felt that Alicia was one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen. It was incredible, and all of the folks that were here agreed with that. Alicia is like and like a lot of other people - I love to eat, we all love to eat - not all of you, some of you are lucky - but we eat. We like to eat. We like to eat. And she had tremendous pressure put on her with the win and everything else. Plus she was going all over the world, all foreign places, and that was a huge amount of pressure. And some people when they have pressure don't eat, and some people when they have pressure eat too much - like me, like Alicia. And what's she going to do now, she has one of the great trainers of the world...
TRUMP: ...and a very very famous man in his own right, and he's been working with her for the last few days, and I think she's going to show up at that conference, actually, probably being a little bit bigger than when she won it, but you think that's actually better? (to trainer) When she won it, she weighed about 118 pounds (too light says trainer present) and actually, from what I understand a little bit heavier. But I will say, when she won the conference, I had never seen anybody more beautiful, and she's totally beautiful now, but I think come contest time, what are you talking about in terms of weight? (to trainer)
The trainer says she was too light before, and they want her to weight more than the 118.
A reporter asks if Trump really considered letting her go.
TRUMP: Well, I'll tell you, there was a group that wanted us to do that very much, and I have to credit CBS also because they are my partner. I bought the contest, the Miss Universe/Miss USA contest, and then CBS joined me as my partner, I mean more that just five years of broadcast rights. They actually are 50/50 partners now, and they were with me 100%; we really agreed on it together. And one of the reasons is that, you know, you have a lot of people that have problems with weight, eating disorders, whatever you want to call it. A lot of you people, I mean I'm looking at you reporters, and I can't believe how many showed up, but a lot of you folks have weight problems I hate to tell you. (Machado laughs and leans in towards Trump). And that doesn't include you, but a lot of you folks that I'm looking at right now aren't in the greatest of shape, and the truth is...and I'm not meaning that you're too skinny, although you're pretty skinny I have to tell you (to reporter). The fact is that this is a universal problem.
The bottom line, from CNN, is that Trump does not take the advice to terminate her contract which some wanted him to do, and instead he does this so she can maintain her crown. He then talks about how she is one of the most beautiful women he has ever seen, says she's still beautiful with weight gain, and proceeds to defend her by putting himself in the same boat. He says it's been stressful for her, and she, like he does, eats when stressed. He hires her a trainer (more on that in a second) who tells her she doesn't need to lose all the weight and wants to help her stay at a healthy BMI (not be too thin). He then says this is a problem many people, including the reporters present, have. Classic Trump was insulting reporters back then too.
The above is from a larger article I did on this, and it goes into more detail defending Trump.
ONTO THE LIE:
The media covered this Machado story with glee. Trump, frustrated, obviously couldn't sleep one night and Tweeted this:
"Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an "angel" without checking her past, which is terrible!"
"Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M. become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?"
It's obviously true that Hillary never looked into Alicia Machado's past. She is accused of driving the getaway car in an attempted murder, threatening to kill a judge, and having a baby with a Mexican drug kingpin.
She didn't even deny regarding the attempted murder and judge when asked by Anderson Cooper:
The judge in the case also said you had threatened to kill him after he indicted your boyfriend for the attempted murder.' Cooper said. 'I just want to give you a chance to address these reports.'
'He can say whatever he wants to say. I don't care,' Machado said, referring to Trump as she waved her hand in defiance.
'You know, I have my past. Of course. Everybody has. Everybody has a past. And I'm not a saint girl. But that is not the point now.'
Machado in the same breath called the accusation 'wrong' and said it 'happened' decades earlier.
'That moment in Venezuela was wrong, was another speculation about my life, because I'm a really famous person in my country, because I'm an actress there, and in Mexico too,' she said.
'And he can use whatever he wants to use. The point is, that happened 20 years ago.'
She had sex on television:
In the 2005 episode of 'La Granja,' she had sex in front of the cameras with Spanish TV host Fernando Acaso.
Machado was engaged to Philadelphia Phillies right fielder Bobby Abreu at the time. The Venezuelan-born major-leaguer called off the wedding after clips of the show appeared online.
The broadcast showed Acaso on top of her, with Machado whispering in Spanish about his manhood.
THERE IS VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THIS:
HOWEVER, CNN LIED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE TAPE (SAYING THERE WAS NONE) WITH A REPORT ON AC360. They weren't the only news outlet to do it either. Even Politifact, the supposed non biased site treated with a God like reverence by liberals, lied about the tape. They did so by playing semantics and defining the sex tape as a traditional porn tape instead of the tape which aired on television in Machado's country where she cheated on her fiance by having sex with a TV host.
1) We have video proof:
2) Her fiance left her over it.
3) She ADMITTED to it in 2005
Miami, U.S., June 10, 2005 (Notimex) - Venezuelan former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, said she has "people's support" and ruled out being sorry for having starred a porn video in a Spanish reality show.
"I felt fine as a person, as a human being...and well, that was the purpose," said Machado while she arrived to Miami, about her participation in reality TV "La Granja" where she had sex in front of the cameras with Spanish presenter Fernando Acaso.
"It's the way I am as a person, as a woman and I keep going forward," said in her first statements to Univision network's El Gordo y la Flaca, interviewed at the Airport of Miami, city where she lives.
"It was a very strong experience, very difficult in all senses, and I feel very happy with the events in Spain. I had people's support once more and I gained respect for what I am as a person and that was the purpose," said.
"When you take a challenge and responsibility, you take it until the end. Also, when you do a reality show, it's just that, a show of reality, and that's what I am as a person, as a woman and I keep going forward." NTX
Hat tip to GotNews for that article which is now deleted.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT CNN LIED THEN AND IS STILL LYING TODAY:
Take this article talking about how Trump has been more disciplined that just went up on CNN this November 3. Look what it says:
Their biggest success was the way Trump reacted to Clinton ending the first debate, when she highlighted his past comments about Machado. He not only ranted about it at events, he went after Machado personally, including an especially odd tweet sent at 3 am suggesting she had a sex tape.
This language implies Trump was lying. The only liar here is CNN!
HOWARD STERN SAYS CNN MADE UP HEADLINE
Howard Stern: I Didn’t Say Trump Lied — Robin: CNN Made It Up!
After CNN published the headline “Howard Stern Says Trump Backed Iraq War In 2002” last week, the radio shock jock said he doesn’t know “how CNN came up with that headline” during Monday’s episode of “The Howard Stern Show.”
Howard Stern: I got so upset because, you know, let’s face it, tapes from our show featuring Donald Trump have been used in the campaign. And the other day, I was talking to Robin on the air, and I said to her, yeah, you know it was really surreal sorta laying there in bed and watching them mention my name on the debate. And I said, basically for people who might not be aware, I said, yeah, Trump was on our show, and he was talking — I asked him about the Iraq war, and he said that he was for it.
Robin Quivers: ‘Well, I guess you have to be,’ or something like that. It wasn’t like an enthusiastic…
Quivers: You didn’t confirm anything!
Sterns: Yeah, that ‘Howard Stern now says that Trump is lying about…’
*Groans in studio*
Stern: Yeah! This was on CNN. Big headline and they brought people in. They were having a discussion — a panel discussion. And I was sitting there and I…
Quivers: Can they really do that? You didn’t say anything!
Stern: Nothing! I said nothing new. And so I emailed Trump and I wanted to explain to him that, uh, that is not what I said.
CHRIS CUOMO SAYS IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ WIKILEAKS - ONLY MEDIA OUTLETS LIKE CNN CAN
Also interesting is, 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.”
Cuomo’s claim is faulty on a few counts. While the government might potentially prosecute somebody purely for the act of downloading stolen documents, legal experts are divided on whether such a prosecution would be constitutional. Even if downloading the emails were illegal, that is totally irrelevant in this case, because nobody has to download the WikiLeaks emails in order to read them. They’re all freely available to read on a website anybody can access.
Whatever the legal status of downloading the emails, there is absolutely no restriction on simply reading them, despite what Cuomo implies.
It's chilling when he says "...so everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us." This is because
CNN is in the the tank for Clinton and would rather more time bashing Trump than focusing on the full scale of the Wikileaks.
DON LEMON TELLS SCOTTIE NELL HUGHES THAT DONNA BRAZILE DIDN'T LEAK THE DEBATE QUESTIONS TO HILLARY CLINTON
Wikileaks proved that Donna Brazile, now interim DNC chairwoman and CNN employee, got the debate questions and sent them to Hillary's team. Now, at the time this aired on CNN, news hadn't come out about the second debate question she leaked, but we knew about the first question regarding the death penalty:
From time to time I get the questions in advance
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
Yet, on October 25, Don Lemon went after Scottie Nell Hughes and said:
DON LEMON: People at home are not professional debaters, and I mean we all have to listen everyone - you're a contributor - we're all contributors - to CNN. CNN is a news organization, and I think as a news organization, whether you are someone who is, you know, an anchor or a contributor, that the viewer and CNN as a news organization deserve that you COME ON THE AIR AND TELL THE TRUTH, not to be a professional debater. And I think that's where it sort of gets sort of lost in it because people don't realize - they don't know - if you're speaking the truth or what you're doing, BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE PAID BY CNN THEN YOU HAVE TO TELL THE TRUTH.
(UNBELIEVABLE - Keep that in mind, folks!)
Scottie proceeded to ask Don if he believed in media bias. Don said there are certain instances of it, but it's not widespread. Scottie pointed out that the entire program was bashing Trump, and the only thing nice said about Trump on the program that night was by the two Trump surrogates - her and Corey Lewandowski. Don again:
DON LEMON: I have to say that I work for this news organization, and I THINK THAT IT SETS A STANDARD FOR INTEGRITY, and nothing like that would ever happen at this news organization, and I think it probably wouldn't happen at most news organizations. You're giving examples of one or two or maybe three or four things considering the hundreds of thousands of reporters that are out there.
SCOTTIE: But didn't we hear about the questions being leaked by one of our contributors to the Hillary Clinton camp and...
ANGELA RYE (DEMOCRAT SHILL): No, we did not.
DON: No, that's not true. Nothing was leaked by one of our contributors to anyone. That is something that...
SCOTTIE: It came from Wikileaks.
DON: That did not happen.
DON: That did not happen.
ANGELA: Peter King called Wikileaks a terrorist organization. It's outrageous.
CHARLES BLOW (DEMOCRAT SHILL): This is really important because Don had made and raised this point before. This idea that we...we come on and say things that are not true..
SCOTTIE: That was true. That's true.
DON: That's not true!
ANGELA: That's not true!
DON: That's not true. That isn't a contributor. The person who leaked email, if they did or not, does not work for this news organization.
SCOTTIE: She did at the time.
(Angela starts ranting about defending Donna, and I'm skipping that.)
DON: CNN does not provide Donna Brazile with anything. Donna Brazile is not in on any debate anything.
SCOTTIE: I just said that...
DON: You should READ YOUR FACTS BECAUSE THEY'RE WRONG, AND THAT'S WHAT I MEAN...
ANGELA: You're going to tarnish someone like that.
DON: You have an obligation, and you do work for CNN. You're being paid by CNN to tell the truth - that's not the truth. That's not the truth.
DON LEMON LIED - THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE TRUTH.
1) We have the emails. All three:
From time to time I get the questions in advance
I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted
This one released by Wikileaks after this aired on CNN:
One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash
2) This was written about on a couple news outlets (I did a search for prior to October 25)
This discussion occurred after Megyn Kelly decimated Donna Brazile on TV by bringing this up.
3) Jake Tapper responded prior to this airing:
CNN's Jake Tapper spoke to WMAL's Larry O'Connor and Brian Wilson about his former colleague:
"It’s a very, very troubling… look, I have tremendous regard for Donna Brazile. She’s a good person and a nice person and I like her a lot but whatever took place here… and
I know I had nothing to do with it… and I know CNN, we were so closely guarding our documents… they weren’t emailed around.
My understanding is the email to Donna came from either Roland Martin or someone around Roland Martin."
Tapper also responded to the fact that questions were apparently leaked to the campaign. He confirmed that, at the town hall hosted by himself and Roland Martin, Hillary was asked a question that matched the one forwarded to her by Brazile almost word for word.:
It’s horrifying. Journalistically it’s horrifying and I’m sure it will have an impact on partnering with this organization in the future and I’m sure it will have and effect on… Donna Brazile is no longer with CNN because she’s with the DNC right now, but I’m sure it will have some impact on Donna Brazille.
People at CNN take this very, very seriously and to have somebody who does not take it seriously and to have us partner with that person and then they do something completely unethical and share it with Donna Brazile who then shares it with the Clinton campaign… it’s horrifying and very, very upsetting and I can’t condemn it any more than…
I condemn it in no uncertain terms, it’s awful."
4) CNN even admitted they were uncomfortable with what she did. HERE'S THE KICKER! DONNA BRAZILE RESIGNED FROM THE NETWORK/WAS FIRED (I'll get to that in a second) ON OCTOBER 14, 11 DAYS PRIOR TO LEMON'S INTERVIEW! (It just wasn't made public until it came out she had leaked a second question.) If she did nothing wrong, she would still be at the network! Don Lemon knew (see a quote I will post a quote from fellow CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin who said she was "terminated") that she was out at CNN over this, and YET HE LIED ON THE AIR WHILE PREACHING ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF CNN AND THE IMPORTANCE OF TELLING THE TRUTH!
5) After the second email came out, CNN made a public statement and posted it on their website saying that she was out and had been out since October 14!
Donna Brazile, the acting chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, resigned from her role as a CNN contributor earlier this month.
Her departure was announced Monday amid fresh revelations that she sent questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign in advance of a CNN debate and a CNN-TV One town hall.
In a statement, CNN said it was "completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
CNN said it "never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate."
Brazile resigned from the network on October 14, three days after Wikileaks released an email in which Brazile says she got advance questions before a town hall event. "From time to time I get the questions in advance," she wrote in the email.
5) Did she resign or was she fired? Either way, CNN wanted her gone.
Multiple outlets say she was fired including Politico:
Brooke Baldwin from CNN confirmed she was fired:
Baldwin: “There was some sort of termination … That is way, way higher than my pay grade, Matt. So I really can’t address it, but I can tell you that [inaudible] did not help her out.”
The Washington Post confirmed it in the article with the Baldwin quote:
CNN EDITS FOOTAGE
On Sunday night, Justin Baragona at Mediaite caught CNN red-handed nine days before the election in the highly unprofessional act of fabricating claims that Donald Trump told a Colorado rally that they should vote repeatedly on Election Day.
With time ticking away and the original story retweeted from @CNNPolitics over 900 times, Mediaite successfully shamed them into only a measly correction and deleting the original tweet with the false headline over two hours later.
Baragona explained that CNN originally told readers on its website that Trump had been “encourag[ing] voting more than once if necessary” and a further illustration of him “not letting up on his claims that the election could be rigged against him.”
Here’s what CNN claimed Trump stated in the original CNN Politics story: “If you go to university center, they’ll give you a new ballot, they’ll void your old ballot, in some places they do that four or five times, so by tomorrow, almost everyone will have their new ballots in.”
As Baragona quickly revealed, here’s what Trump actually said (as he also provided a video from the rally in question):
If you go to university center, they’ll give you a new ballot, they’ll void your old ballot. They’ll give you a new ballot, and you can go out and make sure it get’s in. Now in some places, they do that four or five times, but we don’t do that. So by tomorrow, almost everyone will have their new ballots in.
Needless to say, CNN had some explaining to do and upon being caught, they changed the story to read the following:
“They’ll give you a ballot, a new ballot. They’ll void your old ballot, they will give you a new ballot. And you can go out and make sure it gets in,” Trump said.
Registered voters in Colorado automatically receive a ballot in the mail, but can request a new ballot or vote in person if they have not yet mailed in a completed ballot.
“In some places they probably do that four or five times. We don’t do that. But that’s great,” Trump said Sunday, appearing to hint at the possibility of voter fraud in Colorado, a rare prospect Trump has continued to hammer on the stump.
The kicker is that CNN aired that rally on TV and heard the full quote and still chose to misrepresent it. Are they sorry? Newsbusters says they changed the article:
Initially, the article by Jeremy Diamond, Ashley Killough, and Caroline Kenny was updated and the headline changed to read “Trump stokes skepticism of Colorado voting system” with no acknowledgment of the error until around 9:00 p.m. Eastern when the title was altered.
CNN finally added a correction at 9:36 p.m. Eastern that ruled “[t]his story and headline have been corrected to accurately reflect Donald Trump’s statement about mail-in balloting in Colorado.”
CNN ATTACKS TRUMP FOR COURTING BLACK VOTERS BUT NOT WANTING FELONS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE
Trump slams voting rights for felons, wants GOP to court black voters
Fredericksburg, Virginia (CNN)Donald Trump acknowledged Saturday that the Republican Party "must do better" in appealing to African-Americans.
But in the same speech here, he again slammed an order by the state's Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, to restore voting rights to some convicted felons who have completed their sentences, a move McAuliffe says could help African-Americans who were disproportionally affected by laws that put lifetime bans on felons.
CNN just equated black voters with felons.
CNN DID A PIECE ON VOTER FRAUD WHERE A MAN REFERENCED PROJECT
VERITAS AND CNN SAID THEY ARE DISCREDITED
CNN never disproved the Project Veritas videos showing discussions of voter fraud and showing that the Democrats were behind the violent protesters at Trump rallies.
In fact, Bob Creamer resigned:
Creamer resigned from the Democratic National Committee in October 2016 after a video was released which showed him discussing a scheme to pay people to incite violence at rallies for the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The footage showed Creamer discussing fraudulent voting arrangements and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate. Creamer and Democratic Party spokespeople subsequently described the conversations as "hypothetical" and denied that the tactics described had been used.
Scott Foval was fired:
James O’Keefe has claimed his first scalp since releasing his latest bombshell undercover video.
Scott Foval, the National Field Director of Americans United for Change--who can be seen in the video bragging about paying homeless and mentally ill individuals to cause disruptions at political events--has been fired from the organization.
Americans United For Change made the announcement in a statement from the group's president.
"Americans United for Change has always operated according to the highest ethical standards," said Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United For Change. "Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change."
These last two are related to police shootings, not the campaign, but CNN has a predictable narrative on these shootings. It's always that police are guilty until proven innocent. CNN brings on panels and fosters rage against the police before they even have all the facts in.
CNN EDITS FOOTAGE OF SISTER OF MILWAUKEE SHOOTING VICTIM CALLING FOR RIOTS - MAKING IT LOOK LIKE SHE CALLED FOR PEACE
In a classic case of media bias by omission, CNN took extra care Monday to leave out a crucial part of their reports on the Milwaukee police shooting. After a black police officer fatally shot Sylville Smith Sunday, after he refused to put down his gun, riots and violence ensued in the city. Smith’s family was eager to talk to the media and his sister Sherelle had a message that should have been covered and condemned by the media. Instead, CNN decided to air her words but curtail them before they became controversial.
In this video posted by user DeeconX on Twitter, Sherelle Smith can be seen here, in front of several
reporters, calling for violence to end...in the city. What she says next is shocking. [language warning]
“Burnin down shit ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.” But you wouldn’t guess Smith had said anything of the kind based on
CNN’s reporting. Both on their website and televised on CNN Newsroom Monday, CNN described Sherelle Smith as “calling for peace.” They conveniently left out the rest of her message, calling for protesters to burn down the suburbs.
On CNN.com, under the subhead, “Residents try to heal,” the article read:
Smith's sister Sherelle Smith condemned the violence, saying the community needs the businesses affected. "Don't bring that violence here," Neal, his other sister, said while sobbing.
That was all CNN reported. Again on CNN Newsroom this morning, correspondent Ana Cabrera reported that Sherelle Smith* was “calling for peace,” before playing just a few seconds of Smith’s words that left out the most damning part.
Kristine Marsh of Newsbusters caught ways CNN tried to spin her remarks on air and on their website.
First, their website, which has since replaced the original text. Here’s what Newsbusters found in the CNN story when it was first published on their site:
Smith's sister Sherelle Smith condemned the violence, saying the community needs the businesses affected. "Don't bring that violence here," [Kimberley] Neal, his other sister, said while sobbing.
Here’s what it says now:
Smith's sister Kimberly Neal mourned a brother she described as a high school graduate who played basketball, not a "man with a lengthy arrest record" described by police.
"He should have been tased, if anything," she said.
For the record, CNN apologized after being called out by multiple outlets and outrage:
First, (from Fox linked below number 14):
CNN correspondent Anna Cabrera tweeted an apology for the edit, saying, “We shot-handed sister’s quote. Unintentionally gave the impression she was calling for peace everywhere. Correction.”
Also, Carol Costello apologized on the air:
BLUE LIVES MATTER ACCUSES CNN OF DELIBERATELY EDITING A VIDEO OF CHARLOTTE SHOOTING
Blue Lives Matter, an organization comprised of active or retired law enforcement officers, claims the cable news network edited video of the Sept. 20 fatal shooting of Keith Scott to cut out police ordering him to “drop the gun,” fueling claims Scott, a black man, was unarmed when he was shot by Officer Brentley Vinson. Although Vinson is black, the incident was the latest police shooting around the nation to spur violent protests and rioting.
"The editing was clearly intended to give viewers the impression that Scott wasn't armed. By intentionally excluding information to promote the false narrative that the officer-involved shooting of Keith Scott was unjustified, CNN directly contributed towards inciting violence and destruction in the Charlotte riots,” Blue Lives Matter said in a statement. “Innocent citizens were hurt during the Charlotte riots, but editing like this also incites violence against police officers long after the riots are over.”
The video in question was taken by Scott’s widow, Rakeyia Scott. In it, she can be heard saying, “He has no weapon.”
Video released by the police shows Scott, who police say was in his SUV rolling a joint, getting out of the vehicle and backing away from police as they crouched with their guns drawn. The grainy video does not clearly show whether Scott had a gun in his hand, but police say they recovered a stolen, loaded handgun at the scene and that Scott was wearing an ankle holster.
The full, unedited video includes a police officer shouting, “Gun. Gun. Drop the gun.”
As Rakeyia Scott pleads, “Don’t shoot him, don’t shoot him,” and “He didn’t do anything,” police continue to yell “drop the gun” or a similar phrase at least 12 times in 38 seconds.
Rayeyia Scott claims her husband was holding a book.
For the record, a gun was pictured on the ground near him.
TIMES THAT CNN CUT THE MIC OR LOST FEED OF PEOPLE CRITICIZING CLINTON
If these various lies and distortions, all designed to help Hillary Clinton, don't convince you that CNN is in the tank for Hillary, how about emails The Intercept posted?
Other documents listed those whom the campaign regarded as their most reliable “surrogates” — such as CNN’s Hilary Rosen and Donna Brazile, as well as Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden — but then also listed operatives whom they believed were either good “progressive helpers” or more potentially friendly media figures who might be worth targeting with messaging.
The metadata of the surrogate document shows the file was authored by Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director of the campaign. As The Intercept previously reported, pundits regularly featured on cable news programs were paid by the Clinton campaign without any disclosure when they appeared; several of them are included on this “surrogates” list, including Stephanie Cutter and Maria Cardona:
Donna Brazile is of course out at CNN as we covered, but Hilary Rosen and Maria Cardona are surrogates. I don't have a problem with that as CNN has Trump surrogates too. There is a list provided (at link) of Progressive Helpers and Columnists/Pundit calls. These are media figures they consider friendly. There are a list of people whose names one would recognize if one watches the news. An array of people make the list, but who do we see from CNN?
Jeff Zeleny (Jeff Zeleny is assigned to and covers the Hillary campaign currently on CNN)
The Clinton campaign likes to use glitzy, intimate, completely off-the-record parties between top campaign aides and leading media personalities. One of the most elaborately planned get-togethers was described in an April, 2015, memo — produced, according to the document metadata, by deputy press secretary Jesse Ferguson — to take place shortly before Clinton’s official announcement of her candidacy. The event was an April 10 cocktail party for leading news figures and top-level Clinton staff at the Upper East Side home of Clinton strategist Joel Benenson, a fully off-the-record gathering designed to impart the campaign’s messaging:
FR: Jesse Ferguson
RE: Benenson's Cocktails on 4.10.15
This is an off-the-record dinner with key national reporters, especially (though not exclusively) those that are based in New York. Much of the group includes influential reporters, anchors, and editors.
The goals of the dinner include:
(1) Give reporters their first thoughts from team HRC in advance of the announcement
(2) Setting expectations for the announcement and launch period
(3) Framing the HRC message and framing the race
(4) Enjoy a Frida night drink before working more
TIME/DATE: As a reminder, this is called for 6:30 p.m. on Friday, April 10th. There are several attendees - including Diane Sawyer - who will be there promptly at 6:30 p.m. but have to leave by 7:00 p.m.
Now, as you will be able to see at the link, there are reporters from various networks, but here are the reporters from CNN:
Jake Tapper and Jeff Zucker (head of CNN) declined but were invited.
Wikileaks shows another email which reveals reporters were invited to an off the record dinner at John Podestas
We wanted to make sure everyone on this email had the latest information on the two upcoming dinners with reporters. Both are off-the-record.
1) Thursday night, April 9th at 7:00p.m. Dinner at the Home of John Podesta. His address is 3743 Brandywine St NW in Washington, DC. This will be with about 20 reporters who will closely cover the campaign (aka the bus).
2) Friday night, April 10th at 6:30p.m. Cocktails and Hors D'oeuvre at the Home of Joel Benenson. His home address is 60 E. 96th Street, #12B, New York, 10128. This is with a broader universe of New York reporters.
Multiple reporters from various networks and papers RSVP'ed
Dan Merica is covering the Clinton campaign for CNN at this time, and is (not surprisingly) on good terms with Hillary according to this Wikileaks email discussing a trip Hillary had to Georgia:
Dan Merica asked her if she was jealous that she didn't get Christie's endorsement, to which she responded with a prolonged smile (you could see the gears turning), and then said "Dan, I really like you. I really really like you." They are basically courting each other at this point.
In this Wikileak email, there is a memo that they want to get out, so they are going to "leak" it to Dan Merica at CNN:
Memo is attached—it’s been proofed and has Marlon-approved numbers. Unless I hear otherwise, we’ll send to our friends and allies list at noon and Jesse will get it leaked to Dan Merica at CNN. We will then give it to anyone who asks.
In this Wikileak email, there was some weird discussion about Bernie waving his arms. Anyway, the campaign was going to contact Dan Merica:
Dan Merica wrote an article about Hillary and the Wikileaks basically saying the Wikileaks showed her to be a “methodical” and “tactical” politician:
Washington (CNN)The emails hacked from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta have offered an insight into the inner workings of the famously guarded candidate's operation.
And it turns out, they're not much different than the external ones.
Emails posted by WikiLeaks reveal a buttoned-up campaign that analyzes nearly every decision, mirroring Clinton's reputation as a methodical and tactical politician. And secret transcripts of Clinton's paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall Street have failed to turn up any positions widely different than what she says in public.
Breitbart did a whole entire article addressing this Dan Merica article. I recommend checking it out:
Dan Merica likes Hillary so much, that he allowed her to coral him in rope. He is the first picture when you
click on this article:
Clinton corrals press while walking Gorham parade route
CNN's Dan Merica is pictured behind the ropes the Clinton campaign set up to contain the press in Gorham on Saturday. (Courtesy/ Maggie Haberman)
Of course we can't forget Jake Tapper:
This email from someone on Clinton's campaign staff says:
"Window closing on this. Need to know asap if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us."
This email from Jason Seher, a CNN producer of Jake Tapper's show The Lead, sent this:
"Thanks for facilitating Luis coming on today, and bearing with us through a melee of GOP nonsense and cancellations and all that.
Any particular points he'll want to make? We're gonna stay Dem focused..."
Wikileaks has released DNC hacked emails:
In an April 2016 email from DNC research director Lauren Dillon, we find that CNN's Wolf Blitzer had tasked the DNC with coming up with questions for his interview of Donald Trump:
Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed.
Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.
The DNC was quick to oblige, even if ultimately the interview ended up getting cancelled.
The link provides the email with a list of questions, and it shows that in April of 2016, they were asked to come up with questions for Ted Cruz.
CNN invited a professor to write a column for CNN.com. His name is Jeff Hancock, and he is from Stanford. Jeff Hancock entitled his column:
Trump's bullsh*t: Why his supporters don't care that he's lying
I propose an idea for a column:
CNN's Bullsh*t: Why they feel they don't owe their viewers the truth
CNN put another column up days later entitled:
Lying may be your brain's fault, honestly
But could there be a biological component at play? New research that focused on a specific region in our brains suggests there is.
"When we lie for personal gain, our amygdala produces a negative feeling that limits the extent to which we are prepared to lie," said Tali Sharot, an associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at University College London. "However, this response fades as we continue to lie, and the more it (fades) the bigger our lies become."
A decreased amygdala response, in other words, may help explain the "slippery slope" of lying, said Sharot, one of the authors of "The Human Brain Adapts to Dishonesty," just published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
This was not a political article, but perhaps CNN has a decreased amygdala response because they seem to justify lying, distorting, or hiding the truth from viewers if it suits their political purposes: