|
|
By Curtis Houck
On Tuesday night, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, Noticiero Telemundo, and Noticiero Univision saw no reason to inform their viewers that a federal judge ruled hours earlier
that State Department officials and aides to former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton can be questioned under oath about their knowledge and
role in Clinton’s private e-mail scandal.
In a lawsuit concerning public records filed by Judicial Watch, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the advocacy group in a 2013 suit that originally concerned Huma Abedin’s employment status as both a public and private sector employee.
The CBS Evening News covered
the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign but focused exclusively on
the efforts by Clinton and socialist Senator Bernie Sanders to court
backing from African-American voters by discussing criminal justice
reform.
Meanwhile, NBC Nightly News
failed to even go that far and ignored the Democratic side completely
in favor of more time on the Republicans ahead of the late Tuesday night
Nevada caucuses.
ABC’s World News Tonight
broke ranks on this story and spent 50 seconds out of its
one-minute-and-50-second Democratic campaign segment on the matter.
Anchor David Muir described it all as “major developments” with “Clinton drawn back into her e-mail controversy.”
Reporting
from South Carolina, Democratic campaign correspondent and Saturday
anchor Cecilia Vega explained that while Clinton has been gunning for a
win on Saturday in the Palmetto State, “a federal judge deliver[ed] a stark reminder to voters about that controversy still hanging over her campaign.”
“The
judge ruling Clinton's top aides and State Department officials should
testify under oath about their role in setting up the private e-mail
server she used as secretary of state,” Vega added.
At
the end of her segment, Muir asked Vega what the response from the
Clinton campaign was and she responded that they’ve brushed it off as
being nothing more than “right wing attacks.” Vega made no
attempt to refute this notion despite the fact that Judge Sullivan was
appointed to the federal bench by Clinton’s husband Bill Clinton.
Here’s more on the ruling from The Washington Post:
A
federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top
aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether
they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or
allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure
as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
The
decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in
a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative
legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request for information
about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton
aide.
(....)
Sullivan
set an April 12 deadline for parties to litigate a detailed
investigative plan--subject to court approval--that would reach well
beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the
private server that department and Clinton officials have given.
The transcript of the segment from ABC’s World News Tonight with David Muir on February 23 can be found below.
ABC’s World News Tonight with David Muir
February 23, 2016
6:39 p.m. Eastern
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: 4 Days to S.C.; Breaking News; Aides to Testify]
 DAVID
MUIR: Now, to major developments on the Democratic side. Just four days
until the South Carolina primary, and tonight, Hillary Clinton drawn
back into her e-mail controversy. The new question: Will top aides now
have to testify? The Clinton team's response, coming in right now and
the question for senator Bernie Sanders tonight, is there still a path?
Hillary Clinton with a nearly 30-point lead in South Carolina, and ABC's
Cecilia Vega is there.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking News; Clinton vs. Sanders; Email Issue Resurfaces Ahead of Key Races]
CECILIA
VEGA: Tonight, as Hillary Clinton hopes for a big win in South
Carolina, a federal judge delivering a stark reminder to voters about
that controversy still hanging over her campaign. The judge ruling
Clinton's top aides and State Department officials should testify under
oath about their role in setting up the private e-mail server she used
as secretary of state. Bernie Sanders on the trail today, too, trying
for the win he needs to keep his campaign afloat. But when the crowd
began to boo at the mention of Clinton's name —
INDEPENDENT SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (Vt.): My opponent, secretary Clinton and I have a strong disagreement — No. No, no, no. No.
VEGA: — Sanders wouldn't have it.
SANDERS: No. I respect Secretary Clinton, we can have differences.
VEGA:
Sanders now setting his sights beyond south Carolina, to Super Tuesday,
hoping for wins in Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts and his home
state, Vermont. Clinton trying to cash in on her support among minority
voters across the South, counting on victories in Arkansas, Texas,
Georgia and Alabama.
 MUIR:
Alright, we'll see and Cecilia live tonight. The Clinton team
responding to word that Clinton aides may now have to testify?
VEGA:
David, Clinton's campaign manager said right-wing attacks are behind
this court case. For her part, she is here in this church tonight,
making her last-minute pitch to South Carolina voters. David?
MUIR: Cecilia Vega with us live again tonight. Cecilia, thank you.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
While questioning Hillary Clinton about her e-mail scandal and the latest court ruling at Tuesday night’s CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall, moderator Chris Cuomo invited the former secretary of state to make a “statement
to Democrats who are afraid that this right, wrong, good, bad, it will
not believe you in this race and may compromise you now and going
forward.”
Cuomo’s inquiry was preceded by a clip from February 20's Late Show of host Stephen Colbert blasting Clinton’s answer to CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley on the day before that she doesn’t “believe I ever have” lied to the American people.
Naturally, Clinton laughed on the split-screen despite Colbert having called her out and complained:
How
can you be this bad at it? Just say no. Just say no. You're running for
president of the United States. Even — even Richard Nixon knew to say, I
am not a crook. He didn't say, it has always been my intention, as far
as I believe, I will do the best I can not to be a crook. Will you lie
is the home run of campaign questions. You just say no and touch all the
bases.
When the clip ended, Cuomo attempted to grease the wheels by mentioning that he knows she recognizes where “the universe of thought” that distrusts her both “comes from” and how “[y]ou’ve known it for a long time.”
After summarizing in a sentence what U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s ruling entailed, Cuomo tossed this softball that’s similar to NBC’s Chuck Todd has lobbed to Clinton on two occasions ( here and here):
Whatever
the details of this latest case, it's what they call the drip, drip
theory of this. It doesn't go away. What is your statement to Democrats
who are afraid that this right, wrong, good, bad, it will not believe
you in this race and may compromise you now and going forward?
Clinton immediately snapped that “there’s just no basis” for it and despite being “in the public arena for 25 years,” she lamented of being “the
subject of a lot of ongoing attacks and misinformation and all the rest
of it, but I can only tell you what the facts are and, you know, the
facts are that every single time somebody has hurled these charges
against me, which they have done, it's proved to be nothing.”
She went onto to trumpet her belief that there’s been no one who’s ever served in a presidential candidate and been more “transparent or open” than she has:
Here,
I have turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails. Nobody in any cabinet
position has ever been as transparent or open. I know there are, you
know, challenges about what the State Department did or didn't do.
That’ll all be worked out. It is just not something that, you know, is
going to have any lasting effect and I am not at all worried about it.
The relevant portion of the transcript from the CNN Democratic Presidential Town Hall on February 23 can be found below.
CNN’s Democratic Presidential Town Hall
February 23, 2016
9:37 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS
CUOMO: You may not know, but the late-night comedians love you. They
love you. They love to do things about you. Stephen Colbert had fun with
an interview you had recently with Scott Pelley. You'll remember it. I
want to play you a piece of it.
 STEPHEN
COLBERT [on 02/19/16]: And something has emerged, something has just
emerged. Just last night that is potentially damaging to Hillary
Clinton's campaign, and it's Hillary Clinton. It's true. Who has been
dogged by questions of trustworthiness and here she is yesterday with
our good friend, Scott Pelley.
SCOTT PELLEY [on 02/18/16]: You know in '76, Jimmy Carter famously said, “I will not lie to you.”
HILLARY
CLINTON [on 02/18/16]: Mmhmm. Well, I will tell you, I have tried in
every way I know how, literally from my years as a young lawyer, all the
way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American
people.
PELLEY
[on 02/18/16]: Some people are going to call that wiggle room that you
just gave yourself “always tried to.” Jimmy Carter said, “I will never
lie to you.”
CLINTON
[on 02/18/16]: You know, you're asking me to say, “have I ever?” I
don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I
ever will. I am going to do the best I can to level with the American
people.
COLBERT
[on 02/19/16]: How can you be this bad at it? Just say no. Just say no.
You're running for president of the United States. Even — even Richard
Nixon knew to say, I am not a crook. He didn't say, it has always been
my intention, as far as I believe, I will do the best I can not to be a
crook. Will you lie is the home run of campaign questions. You just say
no and touch all the bases.
CUOMO: Funny guy, serious topic. Is that a question that you'd like another shot at answering?
CLINTON: I'll just say, no.
CUOMO: You make Mr. Colbert very happy —
CLINTON: Good, good, I want to make him happy.
 CUOMO:
— if you do that. You know the universe of thought this comes from.
You've known it for a long time. You've dealt with it for a long time
and many of us have watched it. Today, a federal judge, as you know,
issued on a ruling on a motion that could pave the way for the
possibility that you could be subpoenaed in order to obtain any
information. Whatever the details of this latest case, it's what they
call the drip, drip theory of this. It doesn't go away. What is your
statement to Democrats who are afraid that this right, wrong, good, bad,
it will not believe you in this race and may compromise you now and
going forward?
CLINTON:
That there’s just no basis for that, Chris. You know, look, I'm well
aware of the drip, drip, drip. I've been in the public arena for 25
years and have been the subject of a lot of ongoing attacks and
misinformation and all the rest of it, but I can only tell you what the
facts are and, you know, the facts are that every single time somebody
has hurled these charges against me, which they have done, it's proved
to be nothing and this is no different than that. You know, and I
testified for 11 hours on the Benghazi Committee. People were really, oh
my goodness, oh my goodness. I told the truth. I testified under oath
and at the end, they had to say, there was nothing there. Here, I have
turned over 55,000 pages of e-mails. Nobody in any cabinet position has
ever been as transparent or open. I know there are, you know, challenges
about what the State Department did or didn't do. That’ll all be worked
out. It is just not something that, you know, is going to have any
lasting effect and I am not at all worried about it.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
Talking
to Republican Colorado Senator Cory Gardner during her MSNBC show on
Tuesday, host Andrea Mitchell lectured the GOP lawmaker on opposing
President Obama’s plan to shut down Guantanamo Bay and bring terrorist
detainees to prisons inside the United States: “So we’re holding
prisoners, paying for them, and arguably hurting our standing in the
world because Guantanamo has become such a red flag everywhere in the
world, when we could have them locked up in the U.S. and put away for
life.”
In
response, Gardner completely ripped apart her argument: “Well,
actually, again, if you are a terrorist you belong in Guantanamo Bay.
That’s where they should stay....And I think this idea that somehow if
you transfer everyone out of Guantanamo Bay that terrorists are just
going to surrender, that they’re not going to continue their fight
against the United States or the west, is gravely mistaken.”
He slammed Obama’s vague proposal: “Look,
if you have an iPhone, your user agreement for the iPhone is longer
than the President’s plan to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees to the
United States, and I think that’s irresponsible.”
Mitchell
began her question by citing a liberal guest she had on minutes
earlier, a former Obama administration official who was once in charge
of leading the crusade to close the detention facility:
One
of the opposing arguments just now from Cliff Sloan, who used to be the
special envoy from the State Department, is that at least 12 of these
prisoners – their lawyers have said that they would plead guilty, but
that they can't because under military commissions, the offenses that
they would plead guilty to are not adjudicable, so they would have to
plead guilty in a military court – rather, in a non-military court in
the U.S.
By
contrast to her exchange with Gardner, Mitchell lobbed softballs to
Sloan, even teeing him up to provide a slanted fact-check of White House
critics:
MITCHELL:
Now, opponents have pointed to an alleged 30% recidivism rate where
terrorists who are then sent home get back to the battlefield. And I
believe you counter that with other data from the intelligence
community.
CLIFFORD
SLOAN: Yeah, that is a complete misconception and it is very important –
obviously Guantanamo has been a difficult issue – it is important to
focus on the facts. And the fact is, that of the detainees that have
been transferred in this administration – who have gone through a very
rigorous process with the intelligence community, the defense community,
law enforcement, foreign policy, all of them having to unanimously
approve the person for transfer – less than 5% of those who have been
transferred have been confirmed of engaging in hostile activities after
they’ve been transferred. Now, everybody wants that number to be zero,
but it’s less than 5%. And over 90% are not even suspected of engaging
in wrongdoing. So that is a complete misconception that is belied by the
facts. And those are figures from the director of national
intelligence, he’s required by Congress to put out a public report, it’s
on their website every six months.
A July 2015 analysis
by Heritage Foundation analyst Cully Stimson broke down the numbers and
actually found a recent increase in the recidivism rate of Guantanamo
detainees.
Without challenge, Sloan proclaimed:
And
the one point I want to emphasize, Andrea, because this is another
misconception that is out there, is sometimes you hear people saying
that the only ones who are remaining in Guantanamo are the worst of the
worst. And that is emphatically not the case. With many of them, they’re
the ones who have the worst luck. They’re from Yemen. They can't go
back to their home country and it is vitally important to have these
other countries who will work with us and accept these detainees.
Mitchell
wrapped up the friendly sit-down by declaring: “That’s why we asked you
here, Cliff Sloan, the man with the answers. Thank you very, very
much.”
Here is a full transcript of Mitchell’s February 23 interview with Senator Gardner:
12:34 PM ET
 ANDREA
MITCHELL: So where will Guantanamo detainees go if and when the prison
would be closed? The President's plan would relocate anywhere from 30 to
60 prisoners to facilities in the U.S., possibly and most likely
including the Supermax prison in Colorado. Senator Cory Gardner,
Republican from Colorado, joins me now. Senator, thank you very much,
good to see you. I should point out that your Democratic colleague,
Senator Bennett, has already come out against this, as well. What is
your opposition, if this were to become reality, to having prisoners
come to Supermax, which everyone believes is the best prison in the U.S.
for them?
SEN.
CORY GARDNER [R-CO]: Well, let’s make a couple of points on that.
Number one, the law is the law. The President signed a bill just a
couple of months ago saying that no detainees can be transferred to the
United States. So in order for the President to accomplish this –
MITCHELL: He had a signing statement in opposition to the Defense Authorization Act, or the appropriations bill.
GARDNER:
Well, he signed the law and his own secretary of defense has said that
the President lacks legal authority to transfer them to the United
States. His own attorney general has said the President lacks the legal
authority to transfer detainees to the United States. An official
staffer with the – lieutenant general with the Joint Chiefs has said
that the President lacks the legal authority to move detainees from
Guantanamo Bay to the United States. So there is a long list of the
President's own appointees who say the President lacks legal ability to
do this.
Now,
the President talked about Supermax and I think the Pentagon actually
violated the law when they sent a scouting troop, a scouting team to
Colorado to evaluate prison sites because the law not only says you
can't spend money to transfer the detainees, but the law also says you
can't spend money to assist in the transfer. And so, how do you send a
scouting team to Colorado, Kansas or South Carolina without violating
that portion of the law already?
But
if you look at the language they’re using, they went and looked at
Supermax, yes, but they also looked at a vacant Colorado state prison.
That’s one of the idea’s that they’re considering right now, is a closed
prison in a community that resoundingly is opposed to the transfer in a
state that the overwhelming number of sheriffs – elected statewide
sheriffs – oppose the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees, too. Look,
Guantanamo Bay is tailor-made for terrorists, and that’s where they
should stay.
MITCHELL:
One of the opposing arguments just now from Cliff Sloan, who used to be
the special envoy from the State Department, is that at least 12 of
these prisoners – their lawyers have said that they would plead guilty,
but that they can't because under military commissions, the offenses
that they would plead guilty to are not adjudicable, so they would have
to plead guilty in a military court – rather, in a non-military court in
the U.S. So we’re holding prisoners, paying for them, and arguably
hurting our standing in the world because Guantanamo has become such a
red flag everywhere in the world, when we could have them locked up in
the U.S. and put away for life.
GARDNER:
Well, actually, again, if you are a terrorist you belong in Guantanamo
Bay. That’s where they should stay. That’s where people in Colorado
believe that they should remain. And I think this idea that somehow if
you transfer everyone out of Guantanamo Bay that terrorists are just
going to surrender, that they’re not going to continue their fight
against the United States or the west, is gravely mistaken. The fact is,
Guantanamo Bay isn't going to prevent the next terror attack from
happening. They are still going to come after us because they don't
believe in the values that we hold as westerners. And so, I think the
President has put out an 8-page and some change white paper talking
points on his plan to remove Guantanamo Bay detainees, to put them in
the United States. Look, if you have an iPhone, your user agreement for
the iPhone is longer than the President’s plan to transfer Guantanamo
Bay detainees to the United States, and I think that’s irresponsible.
MITCHELL: And so, bottom line, what’s gonna happen to this plan?
GARDNER: I'm sorry, Andrea?
MITCHELL: I say, what is your bottom line? What is going to happen to this plan in the Senate?
GARDNER:
Well, again, I think the plan will – is exactly what it was deemed to
be, it’s a talking point for the White House. They don't expect Congress
to change the law. But I think the President’s trying to build his case
based on a political promise to end run Congress, to go around
Congress, to overturn the will of the people of the United States who
sent Congress to do their job, to overturn a law that the President
himself has signed. And so, I'm worried about what the President does
next.
Look,
if the President wanted to work with Congress, then he would start
responding to letters that Congress has sent. I have sent letters to
this administration asking for the legal authority that he is basing his
opinions on to transfer detainees to the United States. I asked him for
legal authority to send a scouting team to Colorado. How is that not in
violation of the law? And yet, we haven't heard a thing from the White
House in response to our letters. And so, if the President is willing to
work with the Congress about this, then perhaps he should start by
doing more than just communicating to us through CNN or MSNBC.
MITCHELL: Thank you very much. Cory Gardner, the senator from Colorado. Appreciate that.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
On Tuesday, while both CBS This Morning and NBC’s Today
covered newly released video of Joe Biden as a senator in 1992
demanding President George H.W. Bush not name any Supreme Court nominees
in an election year, ABC’s Good Morning America ignored the clear evidence of the Vice President’s hypocrisy.
CBS This Morning devoted a full report to the topic, with co-host Gayle King noting: “Republican
senators will meet today to gear up for a fight over the open seat on
the Supreme Court....a newly discovered video is helping Republicans who
want to delay a decision until the next president.”
Correspondent Jan Crawford observed that the video gave Republicans a “big boost...from someone you might not expect.”
A soundbite ran of Biden taking to the Senate floor in 1992 to demand:
“Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the
election campaign is over.”
Crawford
explained: “That's then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden,
who in 1992 suggested he was just fine with blocking any election year
nominees when President George H.W. Bush was in the White House.”
Another
clip followed of Biden: “President Bush should consider following the
practice of a majority of his predecessors and not – and not name a
nominee until after the November election is completed.”
Crawford
pointed out that Republican Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck
Grassley “immediately agreed to what he called the ‘Biden Rule,’” after
the video went viral on Monday.
On NBC’s Today,
co-host Savannah Guthrie offered a 35-second news brief on the past
Biden comments. No soundbites were played of the then-Senator, but
Guthrie summarized:
Republican
leaders are jumping on some comments made by Vice President Joe Biden
when he was a senator 24 years ago. In June of 1992, Biden said the
Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee during an election
year. Biden was speaking hypothetically, the Senate was not considering a nominee at that time.
ABC’s Good Morning America did not mention the Supreme Court nomination debate at all on Tuesday.
On Monday, only CBS Evening News covered the Biden video, while NBC Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight avoided the news.
Here is a full transcript of the February 23 segment on CBS This Morning:
7:14 AM ET
GAYLE
KING: Republican senators will meet today to gear up for a fight over
the open seat on the Supreme Court. A new poll finds that 56% of
Americans want the Senate to hold the hearings and vote on President
Obama's nominee to replace Antonin Scalia. Jan Crawford is on Capitol
Hill, where a newly discovered video is helping Republicans who want to
delay a decision until the next president. Jan, good morning.
 JAN
CRAWFORD: Well, good morning. So, I mean, this is going to be a huge
fight, but one thing is for sure, a lot of these arguments you have
heard before, they were just made by the other side. And Republicans did
get that big boost yesterday from someone you might not expect.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Showdown; Biden’s ‘92 Comments Fuel Scalia Replacement Fight]
JOE BIDEN: Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
CRAWFORD:
That's then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden, who in 1992
suggested he was just fine with blocking any election year nominees when
President George H.W. Bush was in the White House.
BIDEN:
President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of
his predecessors and not – and not name a nominee until after the
November election is completed.
CRAWFORD:
The current Judiciary Committee chair, Republican Chuck Grassley,
immediately agreed to what he called the “Biden Rule.”
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY [R-IA]: In his heart of hearts, he understands why this Senate must do what he said it must do in 1992.
CRAWFORD:
With President Obama poised to move the Court to a liberal majority,
Republicans are vowing to block any nominee. Democrats, like Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid, are questioning their motives.
SEN. HARRY REID [D-NV]: It's a full-blown effort to delegitimatize President Obama.
CRAWFORD:
But Democrats like Reid, and even then-Senator Obama have blocked or
tried to block Republican nominees when they controlled the Senate. And
Republicans, who were in the Senate minority, cried foul.
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL [R-KY]: Any president's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up or down vote.
CRAWFORD: Here is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell yesterday.
MCCONNELL: It is today the American people who are best positioned to help make this important decision.
CRAWFORD:
Now, when Biden made that so-called “Biden Rule,” he says that he
really left the door open for a compromise. In a statement, he said he
was talking about a, quote, “hypothetical vacancy to the Supreme Court.”
And the White House says that then-Senator Obama, well, he now regrets
his vote to filibuster Justice Alito. But Charlie, memories are long in
the U.S. Senate and Republicans are not quite ready to forget.
CHARLIE ROSE: Jan, thanks so much.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Continuing to operate at full speed well past the 1:00 a.m. Eastern hour on Tuesday (10:00 p.m. Pacific), MSNBC’s Hardball
host Chris Matthews attempted to analyze Donald Trump’s victory speech
after winning the Nevada caucuses by comparing his interaction with
supporters to the late Johnny Carson’s relationship with Tonight Show viewers.
Matthews repeatedly claimed that his supporters recognize much of what Trump tells them is “nonsense” and “all shtick” and he “shar[es] with the audience” in the way that “Carson used to do that, Letterman did that” because “[i]t was always the jokes you share” plus “[t]he connection with the audience over time.”
Just as host Brian Williams did when the initial midnight projection was made that Trump would win the Silver State caucuses, the former NBC Nightly News anchor turned to Matthews not long after Trump’s speech and needless to say, the Hardball host was locked and loaded.
“His
speech-making is impossible to teach, really, but what Trump does, he
breaks down that wall between him and the audience. It's always we, how
we're going to do next. He shares with the audience back and forth how
well they're doing in terms of crowds he's building up,” Matthews began.
Pointing out how much of what Trump espouses is “all a joke” and “all shtick,” Matthews declared that “[n]obody’s buying” his claims about loving the Second Amendment and the Bible but instead have served “his way of connecting with the voters and sharing sort of the joke with them.”
Matthews argued that Trump has been serious about his “nationalism thing” but found a way to maintain a following based on his calls to strengthen America’s standing in the world despite “all the stupid things he says, all the awful things he says.”
It
was not long after this portion of Matthews’s extended rant that the
Carson comparison arose (as he blurted out that producers were trying to
cut him off):
I
think he's got that cohesiveness because of it. So much of it is the
sheer showmanship. I remember watching Carson all those years. I’ll tell
you something — I know I'm being interrupted — I'm getting good here.
Audience, sharing with the audience. A good crowd. Carson used to do
that, Letterman did that. It was always the jokes you share. The
connection with the audience over time and this goes way back in show
business.
Before Williams wrestled back control of the scene, Matthews concluded with a final thought about Trump: “He
shares, he connects, he's interactive. It's all about that shtick and
that — the bond he's forming and he is forming a bond out there. And
it's something to watch and you can't teach it.”
The relevant portion of the transcript from MSNBC’s The Place for Politics 2016 on February 24 can be found below.
MSNBC’s The Place for Politics 2016
February 24, 2016
1:06 a.m. Eastern
 CHRIS
MATTHEWS: I think his — his speech-making is impossible to teach,
really, but what Trump does, he breaks down that wall between him and
the audience. It's always we, how we're going to do next. He shares with
the audience back and forth how well they're doing in terms of crowds
he's building up, how he's doing in polls in different states like Texas
next week.
It's
always sharing. It's an interactive thing he does. It’s almost like the
old Irish expression, listen with your tongue. Every time he uses a
line, he can actually hear the reaction, says am I right, am I right?
He's back and forthing it all the time. All the shtick about the lesser
educated, what's he call them? The poorly educated, it's all a joke.
It’s all shtick. It’s all sharing with the audience. I loved
evangelicals. That's nonsense. I love the Second Amendment. I love the
Bible. It's all shtick. The audience is sharing that. Nobody's buying
it. It's his way of connecting with the voters and sharing sort of the
joke with them, but then comes the beef. The beef. Nobody's going to
keep kicking us around anymore. They're going to have pride in our
country. I think that nationalism thing is always on the inside. He
plays around with the audience back and forth. He kids with them. It's
kind of post-modern like we know this is a joke, let's have fun with it,
everything I'm doing is a joke except in a nationalistic pull, that no
other candidate has matched, not even — certainly not Bernie, none of
them got — Hillary doesn't get it. He gets it. I think that's what holds
his audience together through all the stupid things he says, all the
awful things he says.
Yeah,
but he's looking out for the country, these other guys are looking out
for the government. I'm caring about country, not the government or the
party and I think he's got that cohesiveness because of it. So much of
it is the sheer showmanship. I remember watching Carson all those years.
I’ll tell you something — I know I'm being interrupted — I'm getting
good here. Audience, sharing with the audience. A good crowd. Carson
used to do that, Letterman did that. It was always the jokes you share.
The connection with the audience over time and this goes way back in
show business. He shares, he connects, he's interactive. It's all about
that shtick and that — the bond he's forming and he is forming a bond
out there. And it's something to watch and you can't teach it.
|
|
By Ken Shepherd
Chris Matthews dusted off a telling admission from last May. On Tuesday's Hardball
he reiterated his view that Gov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) would be a good
crossing-the-aisle pick to be Hillary's vice presidential running mate.
"Hey,
I've talked about him being on the ticket with Hillary. So I do like
Kasich," Matthews insisted, telling guest Kasich campaign surrogate Tom
Ridge, "I'm not sure how the hell he fits into your party anymore. I
wonder if your party has room for a moderate like Kasich anymore. I just
wonder."
Earlier
in the segment, Matthews asked the former George W. Bush Homeland
Security secretary about President Obama's plan to close the Guantanamo
Bay detention facility:
Governor,
the problem has been, it seems to me, I'm not a lawyer, that you have
people in Gitmo, we know to be dangerous, who have sworn their lives to
get us. They are terrorists, out-and-out terrorists, who will get us if
we let them free. At the same time, we can't make a case against them
under our judicial system.
How
do we bring them into the country, without allowing all kinds of
opportunities for ACLU and other people who will legitimately fight for
their rights to prevent us from prosecuting them or even holding them?
You may recall that Matthews in June 2014
was critical of the way President Obama swapped out five Gitmo
detainees for the release of Bowe Bergdahl without properly notifying
Congress in advance.
Here's the relevant transcript regarding Kasich being too moderate for today's GOP:
MSNBC
Hardball
February 23, 2016; 7:37 p.m. Eastern
TOM
RIDGE, former DHS secretary: The best way for us to win not the
traditional Republican states – but you and I have had this discussion
before – it's the purple states. You've got to get somebody there that's
a unifier, that appeals to a broader section of the party, and John's
the guy.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Hey, I've talked about him being on the ticket with Hillary. So I do like Kasich.
RIDGE laughs.
MATTHEWS:
I'm not sure how the hell he fits into your party anymore. I wonder if
your party has room for a moderate like Kasich anymore. I just wonder. I
look at all the excitement for Cruz and Trump and people far to the
right of John Kasich seem to be getting all the noise, making all the
noise.
|
|
By Matthew Balan
 CNN's Alisyn Camerota accused Donald Trump of " making people feel violently against the press" on Tuesday's New Day. Camerota spotlighted how a Trump supporter blasted NBC's Katy Tur as a "bitch" at a recent campaign rally, and asked former Reagan adviser (and NewsBusters contributor) Jeffrey Lord, " Isn't this dangerous on some level?" When Lord underlined that " people feel that the media distorts" and "portray Trump supporters as a bunch of bigots, rubes, racists, xenophobes," the anchor shot back, " Show us when we've labeled somebody a 'xenophobe,' who's a Trump supporter." [ video below]
Camerota first asked Lord and Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union about "some of the rhetoric on the campaign trail that has been, as you both know, fairly incendiary."
She zeroed in on Trump attacking a protester who disrupted a campaign
event in Las Vegas by saying, "I'd like to punch him in the face." The
journalist also underlined that "sometimes, people are roughed up at some of these campaign events." She wondered, "Is that okay rhetoric, Jeffrey?"
Lord
replied by citing how " the sentiment...about the media was pretty
strong" at a recent event he attended. Camerota followed up with Tur's
Twitter post about the "bitch" attack at the Trump rally. Schlapp
responded, in part, by noting that "Trump has done a great job of
connecting to voters; and he's telling it like it is; and there's no
sacred cows. And all that is very appealing. But at some point, he has
to get to the next level here."
The
CNN anchor returned to subject of the Tur incident: "Back to the
vitriol against the press: isn't this dangerous on some level?" The
Reagan administration alumnus pointed out that "people feel that the
media distorts. They don't tell the truth. They portray Trump supporters
as a bunch of bigots, rubes, racists, xenophobes, et cetera — when they're just hard-working folks who are out there....they feel that they are being deliberately smeared by these folks."
Camerota
shot back, "But Jeffrey, isn't it also that Donald Trump is — I mean,
isn't he also ginning up that feeling? You know, show us when we've —
we've labeled somebody a 'xenophobe,' who's a Trump supporter. Isn't
Donald Trump...ginning that up and making people feel violently against
the press?"
Actually,
CNN commentator Bakari Sellers, the former vice chair of the South
Carolina Democratic Party, used that exact term on the January 3, 2016
edition of the network's State of the Union program: "Donald
Trump is a bigot. Donald Trump is a xenophobe. Donald Trump has offended
Hispanic voters, female voters, those with disabilities, African
American voters. The list goes on and on and on." [see video below]
Lord also highlighted that "the Washington Post this very morning...their editorial board is going after Donald Trump and his supporters. I mean, it's disgraceful. It's an absolute double standard here."
The transcript of the relevant portion of the Lord/Schlapp segment from the February 23, 2016 edition of CNN's New Day:
ALISYN
CAMEROTA: Let's talk about some of the rhetoric on the campaign trail
that has been, as you both know, fairly incendiary — and last night was
no exception. I mean, I—
JEFFREY LORD, FORMER REAGAN WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL DIRECTOR: (laughs) Don't understate things—
[CNN Graphic: "Trump On Protester: 'I'd Like To Punch Him In the Face'"]
CAMEROTA:
I know! I'm understating it. I mean, it's been — you know, at times — I
mean, it even veers into the violent, some people say, Jeffrey. So
here's an example: there was a protester last night in Vegas at one of
Donald Trump's events — and this was Donald Trump's response to him.
DONALD
TRUMP, (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (from campaign event): Here's a guy
throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else when we're
talking. I mean, walking out — and we're not allowed — you know, the
guards are very gentle with him. He's walking out — like, big
high-fives, smiling, laughing. I'd like to punch him in the face.
CAMEROTA:
Okay. So, he says he'd like to punch him in the face. And I know that's
Donald Trump's idea of a joke. But sometimes, people are roughed up at
some of these campaign events. Is that okay rhetoric, Jeffrey?
LORD:
You know, it's not okay, but it's not okay also to provoke. You know,
Alisyn, last night — as you know, I have a book out. I did a book event
last night for about a hundred fifty people in suburban Philadelphia.
And I can only tell you the sentiment there about the media was pretty
strong. I mean, these are just regular folks. I was taking questions
from them. So I — you know, I think that there's real sentiment here;
that there's a lot of provocation going on; and nothing is ever done
about it. And so, Donald Trump just gives vent to it.
CAMEROTA:
Yes. Jeffrey — but Jeffrey, see, there is provocation going on. But I
think you're talking about it from a different side. I mean, let me just
pull up for you — one of the reporters, Katy Tur from NBC — she sent
out this Tweet about what happened last night (actually, February 21).
She says, 'Trump trashes press. Crowd jeers. Guy by press pen looks at
us and screams, 'You are' — you — B word, basically—
LORD: Right; right—
CAMEROTA:
Hold on! 'Other gentleman gives cameras the double bird.' I mean, this
is — is really counterproductive, Jeffrey — this kind of rhetoric. Go
ahead, Matt.
MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Alisyn, I think—
LORD: Alisyn, Alisyn—
SCHLAPP:
Hold on a second, Jeffrey. I think — here's the thing I think you'll
agree with me on — which is Donald Trump has done a great job of
connecting to voters; and he's telling it like it is; and there's no
sacred cows. And all that is very appealing. But at some point, he has
to get to the next level here. He's getting a third — maybe as high as
40 percent in these states. I'd like to see him — if he's really going
to be our front-runner, be able to get a majority in some of these
states. And it's taking the next step — which is, they see a leader in
Donald Trump. I want them now to see, if he's to be the nominee, a
president in Donald Trump. And a president is not someone who always
takes these easy jabs. I think that's what my mom in Kansas wants to
see. I think that's what a lot of Republicans want to see — can he
transcend from what he is today to being a president tomorrow?
CAMEROTA: But Jeffrey — I mean, back to the vitriol against the press: isn't this dangerous on some level?
LORD:
Look, first of all, there's no excuse for calling somebody the B word —
which I understand in that video (sic). But here's — here's the
problem: is — and again, I saw this sentiment firsthand last night —
people feel that the media distorts. They don't tell the truth. They
portray Trump supporters as a bunch of bigots, rubes, racists,
xenophobes, et cetera — when they're just hard-working folks who are out
there. They're very concerned about the shape of their country. And
they feel that they are being deliberately smeared by these folks. So—
CAMEROTA:
But Jeffrey, isn't it also that Donald Trump is — I mean, isn't he also
ginning up that feeling? You know, show us when we've — we've labeled
somebody a 'xenophobe,' who's a Trump supporter—
LORD: Oh, my goodness—
CAMEROTA: Isn't Donald Trump — is ginning that up and making people feel violently against the press?
LORD:
Alisyn, I could point to editorials from all kinds of — I mean, the
Washington Post this very morning is going after — their editorial board
is going after Donald Trump and his supporters. I mean — I mean, it's
disgraceful. It's an absolute — it's an absolute double standard here—
SCHLAPP:
There's a — look, there's a liberal press out there, and all these
Republican candidates have a right to take them on, and I applaud them
every time they do. But what you want in your front-runner is someone
who appeals to the better natures — the better angels of our nature —
and I think that's the next step for Donald Trump. Can he transition to
that?
CAMEROTA: All right. Matt, Jeffrey, thank you for the debate.
|
|
By Geoffrey Dickens
 On
Monday, Charlie Rose used the insulting term “climate deniers” as a way
to describe those who dare express any sort of skepticism about the
liberal orthodoxy of climate change.
The CBS This Morning co-host invited Microsoft co-Founder Bill Gates on to his PBS talk show to promote his Breakthrough Energy Coalition
and asked if “climate deniers” have “gained strength?” Gates responded
that “the problem of climate denial is not a huge problem outside of the
United States.”
The following is the relevant exchange as it was aired on the February 22 edition of PBS’s Charlie Rose show:
CHARLIE
ROSE: Two questions before we turn to health and other things you are
doing. Number one, where — have climate deniers gained strength or are
they, what, where would you put that component of our population?
BILL GATES: The problem of climate denial is not a huge problem outside of the United States. And so —
ROSE: Why is that?
GATES:
That’s a good question. The policy makers on many issues like
agriculture crops called GMOs, Europe is more skeptical of the science
on that.
ROSE: Than we are?
GATES:
Than the U.S. is. On climate change we are uniquely skeptical
particularly in terms of telling policy makers, hey, look askance at
that. And there’s another group that is a little bit of a problem which
is people believe that climate is a problem but think that it’s easy to
solve. And so “okay, hey, as soon as the utility guys don’t stand in the
way of rooftop solar, this thing is solved not just for the U.S., but
for the entire world, not just for the power sector but for transport
industry, industry, home, everything we need.” That notion that it there
are simple solutions also stands in the way.
ROSE: But is that inhibiting forward progress?
GATES:
Until the 2015 November talks, the idea of improving the amount of
innovation, improving increasing R and D actually was not discussed. And
I am still kind of amazed at that. The 20 countries did commit there.
That’s good.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment