| |
|
By Tim Graham
Author and talk-show host Laura Ingraham is being considered for White House press secretary. On Fox News Sunday,
Ingraham demonstrated she was more than ready to come to the emerging
administration's defense. After Fox analyst Juan Williams claimed Trump
was nominating a "team of radicals," singling out Sen. Jeff Sessions and
Gen. Mike Flynn -- something no liberal journalist said about Obama's
Cabinet picks like Eric "Nation of Cowards" Holder and HHS secretary
Kathleen Sebelius -- Ingraham took out a rhetorical hammer:
INGRAHAM:
Well, there was a lot said by Juan. But you said 'team of radicals.'
This is the kind of stuff that has turned people against Washington,
D.C. And these type -- this -- these types of lines against true
patriots, who sacrificed for their country, who are beloved among the
men and women in the military, who actually do the heavy lifting for all
of us. Mattis, General Mattis, is one of the most beloved Marines of
the last 50 years. General Flynn is considered one of the pre-eminent
intelligence experts of our age. So to throw out these lines, a team of
radicals, that serves nobody's interest. If you have a substantive
disagreement with their approach to fighting terror or their approach to
intelligence, that's fine. But these blithe comments, I think, have
poisoned political discussion in this country, and I think it's exactly
why people despise this city.
Williams
argued “So you have people who I would say don't fit into exactly a
team of rivals, but to many people a team of radicals. A team of
radicals in terms of, what are these people representing? Flynn, Mike
Flynn, I don't think he could be confirmed, but so he's getting the --
the national security advisor job.”
Why?
He said Flynn spurred “questions about his management style and about
sharing information and what some in the intelligence community call
"Flynn facts," which is facts that don't comport with what others in the
intelligence community believe to be true. Colin Powell writing in the
WikiLeaks leak that he thought he was unhinged. I think this tells you
this -- it would be very difficult.”
He
also suggested Jeff Sessions shouldn’t be confirmed because he opposed
Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court. He added: “I wrote a
biography of [Thurgood] Marshall. Sessions said, well, you're associated
with these kind of activist judges who are more after their own
political ends than justice. Well, if you apply that to Jeff Sessions
and the fact that he was rejected for a federal judgeship 30 years ago.
We didn't have very sensitive race relations 30 years ago as compared to
today, and he was rejected then.”
Bob
Woodward sounded more pragmatic: “ They are hard liners. But I think,
as Laura was suggesting, in presenting -- in talking about these people,
when you dig into who they are and they have controversial pasts,
presenting them is one dimensional, is a giant mistake. These are
complex people.”
Fox
host Chris Wallace asked Ingraham if the President-Elect understands
"the role the media plays" at the White House. Ingraham said unnamed
"network chiefs" admitted they were "inside their own bubbles" in this
campaign:
 INGRAHAM
I think what a lot of folks after this election cycle ended believe is
that the press really was stacking the deck in their own way against
Trump. Every public opinion survey reveals that. I've had conversations
with network chiefs over the last week who themselves have admitted that
they missed the boat on this and they were operating inside their own
bubbles and not talking to enough Americans.
So
I think, you know, without pointing fingers, I think there's a lot to
be learned from this election. I think the press needs to learn more. I
think some of us in the commentator class need to keep our eyes and ears
open. Respect, I think, is really important. And I think there are
reporters who do great work out there. And sometimes they're not from
the traditional networks. Sometimes they're from new media. But I think
it's -- it’s important that we have a vigorous press and a fair press.
And I think that's all people really should expect.
|
|
By Brad Wilmouth
Appearing as a guest on Friday's Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN, and again later on CNN Tonight,
CNN political commentator Carl Bernstein charged that Donald Trump's
choices for his administration so far are "radically divisive choices,"
alleging that he made his choices 'in an ugly way" that sends a message
to minorities that his administration will not put a priority on
protecting civil rights.
At
one point, he seemed to compare Attorney General nominee and GOP
Senator Jeff Sessions to being like former KKK member and former Alabama
Democratic Senator Hugo Black, who he recalled was appointed to the
Supreme Court and became a "great liberal" justice whom Sessions could
potentially emulate.
At about 8:09 p.m. ET, during Anderson Cooper 360, Bernstein fretted:
These
choices reflect what he said in the campaign at his most extreme in
terms of how we look at Muslims and how we take on ISIS, which is a
strategy that he has enunciated -- it might lose us rather than have us
win in this terrible struggle against radical Islamic terrorism, and
I'll use that phrase. But it's a very, very dangerous strategy he's
embarked on.
It was a bit later that Bernstein recounted the importance of the Justice Department in enforcing civil rights laws:
That's
the sadness here. The Department of Justice -- great Attorneys General
like Robert Kennedy -- the reason we have civil rights in this country
and they have been enforced has been because of great Attorneys General.
Jeff Sessions is not someone who has made his mark by becoming a great
advocate for civil rights in this country. That's the sadness of this.
He
then brought up ex-KKK members who repented and promoted civil rights,
as if a comparison could be made to Sessions, as he added:
Look,
there have been people who were in the Ku Klux Klan and Senators from
Alabama -- namely Hugo Black -- who became a great liberal Supreme Court
justice and was confirmed by the Senate after he had been a member of
the Ku Klux Klan.
I
don't think we're going to see -- I would love it if Jeff Sessions
becomes a great advocate for civil rights for all Americans -- but --
he's going to win in the confirmation hearing -- but you can't look at
this appointment separate from the other four names we've been talking
about and what that signal is to all Americans of where Donald Trump is
going. And they are, quite frankly, poking in the eye.
At 10:25 p.m. ET, during a panel discussion on CNN Tonight, the liberal CNN commentator tore into Trump's announced cabinet nominees again and pointed them as a threat to minorities:
These
are radically divisive choices. Instead of Donald Trump seeing a way to
unify the country, he has chosen division, and this is what we now
face. He's not only chosen division, he's chosen it in an ugly way that
says to African-Americans, says to Muslim-Americans, says to immigrants,
says to people who believe in civil rights that, "We are going in the
other direction. It is not important to us that we protect your civil
rights as the foremost and most important thing that we do in this
country. Instead, we are going in another direction. We're going to
fight Islamic terrorism, but, in the process, we are going to forget
about the rights that ought to be foremost in the minds of most
Americans."
|
|
By Brad Wilmouth
Appearing as a panel member on Sunday's AM Joy on MSNBC, allegedly right-leaning Washington Post
columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that the incoming Donald Trump
administration's talk of dealing with the illegal immigration problem is
"nothing but extreme racism" and an "outrage," as she complained that
too much of the focus has been on Hispanics crossing the border from
Mexico, rather than visa overstays which include immigrants from other
continents.
Even
though focusing on a border where there exists problems of crime,
illegal drug running, and human smuggling across the desert which also
harms those trying to cross illegally, as opposed to people who undergo
screening and an orderly process of entering on visas, Rubin played the
racism card as she complained:
This
is nothing but extreme racism. The largest problem we have with illegal
immigration is not with people who have come over the border, it's
people who have overstayed their visas. Many of those people -- not all
of them -- but many from Asia and from other countries, they have to
come by air, they have to come by boat to get through the system. Why is
he not talking about any of them? This is all focused on Hispanics who
have come through the border at one time or another -- some of them 10,
15, 20 years ago.
She added:
And
I think it's time for people of good common sense to say, "Listen, why
don't we start really where the problem is?" The Federal Government has
the names of these people who are on overstayed visas. Why don't they go
do something about it if they're so concerned about illegal
immigration? I think this is an outrage. I think it's going to be
politically a time bomb for them. And, quite frankly, I don't think it's
ever going to happen.
Rubin's
comments came during a discussion of the possibility that the Trump
administration will put economic pressure on sanctuary cities to comply
with federal immigration laws.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, November 20, AM Joy on MSNBC:
11:09 a.m. ET
JOY REID: This would be, sort of a sneaky, Jennifer Rubin, backdoor way
of defunding some major Democratic-run cities. You've got cities like
New York, Los Angeles, Santa Fe, Chicago. This, in a theory, would be a
way for a Trump administration to strip potentially billions of dollars
from cities that are run by Democrats which, I can only imagine, the
loss in funding could create even more problems and exacerbate problems
in housing and crime by taking vital funds away from those cities
potentially.
Talk
a little bit about the politics of what the optics of this would look
like, Jennifer Rubin. If you do have mass arrests, if you have the NYPD
and the LAPD -- which the LAPD said they won't do it -- being forced to
go in and pretend to be ICE agents and sort of play immigration agent.
What does that do politically to the Republican party, Jennifer?  JENNIFER
RUBIN, WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST: First of all, the Republican party
that I knew used to be in favor of the Constitution. And the
Constitution says that the Federal Government cannot physically --
cannot by overwhelming economic pressure to force the states to do
something. That's why the portion of Obamacare regarding Medicaid was
struck down. This is just doing the same thing. Republicans were against
this when the President was doing it. Now, with Donald Trump, they want
to do it.
Local
and state officials have discretion to enforce the laws. They can
prioritize, just as we were just talking about, maybe crime, actual
crime is a higher priority. So -- I don't think they can legally do
this. I think it would create havoc, and, you know what, Republicans
live in those cities and those states as well. He took Ohio as one of
his key states that has Columbus, that has Cleveland,that has a whole
bunch of big cities in there. Is he really going to turn around and
defund those cities?
But I want to make another point. This
is nothing but extreme racism. The largest problem we have with illegal
immigration is not with people who have come over the border, it's
people who have overstayed their visas. Many of those people -- not all
of them -- but many from Asia and from other countries, they have to
come by air, they have to come by boat to get through the system. Why is
he not talking about any of them? This is all focused on Hispanics who have come through the border at one time or another -- some of them 10, 15, 20 years ago.
And I think it's time for people of good common sense to say, "Listen,
why don't we start really where the problem is? The Federal Government
has the names of these people who are on overstayed visas. Why don't
they go do something about it if they're so concerned about illegal
immigration? I think this is an outrage. I think it's going to be
politically a time bomb for them. And, quite frankly, I don't think it's
ever going to happen.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 As President-Elect Donald Trump’s cabinet selection process continued move along Sunday
morning, the liberal media’s claims of chaos behind the scenes seemed
to give way to cries of racism on the network morning shows. “ So, there's a concern about lack of diversity so far in the hiring,” bemoaned ABC’s Paula Faris on Good Morning America, “ We
saw that he brought in Michelle Rhee and Nikki Haley, but is there
really any likelihood of a pick who is not a white male at this point?”
Faris
had posed her ridiculous question to ABC’s Chief Global Affairs
Correspondent Martha Raddatz, who on election night almost broke down in
tears from Hillary Clinton’s loss. She said she would pass Faris’
question along to Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and said there
were many spots still left to fill.
“And
not all of them are men, white men like as you said former chancellor
of DC public schools Michelle Rhee who was also at Bedminster yesterday,” Raddatz noted before quickly jabbing at Trump, “The five picks announced so far have all been white men. So the pressure is on.”
On the NBC’s Sunday Today,
host Willie Geist left the smearing up to his guest John Heilemann, a
man who had once compared Trump to the insane villain of the Vietnam War
film Apocalypse Now. “As you look at that group right there in total, what do you see,” Geist inquired. “I see a really, really old white group of old white men,” Heilemann replied as he bumbled through his rant:
And
I say that not to be snide, but I think the groups that now in the
country are most concerned about what we're seeing coming out of the
Trump administration is the vast number of millions and millions of
non-white Americans, who are looking at the group-- not because it’s so
white—but also because if you take those people together -- Bannon,
Flynn and sessions -- all three of them have a history of being involved
at a minimum racially insensitive endeavors. Having said racially
insensitive things, and to some people worse than that.
The
liberal media is desperate to find any metric to paint Trump’s future
administration as stocked with white nationalist hardliners. But the
matter of fact is there have only been five picks announced, and of that
only three were cabinet positions. It’s impossible to tell who will
make up his cabinet at this point since candidates are still being
interviewed. Trump as talked with candidates that represent racial
minorities (in Michelle Rhee, who is also a Democrat), and religious
minorities (in Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon).
Transcripts below:
ABC
Good Morning America
November 20, 2016
8:08:50 AM Eastern
…
PAULA FARIS: Alright. So,
there's a concern about lack of diversity so far in the hiring. We saw
that he brought in Michelle Rhee and Nikki Haley, but is there really
any likelihood of a pick who is not a white male at this point?
MARTHA
RADDATZ: Well, I'll put those questions to his Chief of Staff Reince
Priebus later this morning. There are lots of spots left to fill and
lots of big names still circulating out there, including General James
Mattis as defense secretary. He and Trump met yesterday as well. And
not all of them are men, white men like as you said former chancellor
of DC public schools Michelle Rhee who was also at Bedminster yesterday.
The five picks announced so far have all been white men. So the
pressure is on.
…
NBC
Sunday Today with Willie Geist
November 20, 2016
8:06:44 AM Eastern
…
WILLIW
GEIST: Let’s talk about that team. Lenient General Michael Flynn
National Security Adviser, questions raise about his relationship with
Russia, about the views and the things he’s said about Muslims. Steve
Bannon the White House Senior Adviser who ran Breitbart, Jeff sessions
in another one, Mike Pompeo. As you look at that group right there in
total, what do you see?
JOHN HEILEMANN: I
see a really, really old white group of old white men. And I say that
not to be snide, but I think the groups that now in the country are most
concerned about what we're seeing coming out of the Trump
administration is the vast number of millions and millions of non-white
Americans, who are looking at the group-- not because it’s so white—but
also because if you take those people together -- Bannon, Flynn and
sessions -- all three of them have a history of being involved at a
minimum racially insensitive endeavors. Having said racially insensitive
things, and to some people worse than that.
So
part of the thing here is that I think that's unsettling to a large
number of people. It’s going to take us to our conversation about
"Hamilton" in a minute. But, that's what you see there. And it’s
a—That’s a hardline group, on immigration, on foreign policy, on
politics. Apart from Reince Priebus, who in that group is the only kind
of obvious pragmatist in the group, that's an ideological group and
that’s a hardline group.
…
|
|
By Matthew Balan
 On Friday's New Day,
CNN's Alisyn Camerota and David Gregory hammered General Michael Flynn
after Donald Trump selected him to be his national security advisor.
Gregory asserted that Flynn demonstrated "short-sighted, ignorant thinking" and apparently, " jump[ed] the shark into... Islamophobia" over his controversial remarks about Islam. Camerota played up a "fake news" post from Flynn on Twitter, and contended that " there's a gullibility... that is troubling" with the Tweet. Guest Jason Johnson bluntly labeled the general's conduct " dangerous," and accused him of " violent rhetoric."
Camerota
and fill-in anchor John Berman brought on Gregory, Johnson, and regular
panelist Errol Louis for their reaction to the Flynn pick. Louis first
underlined, in part, that the general is "going to...be Trump magnified, as opposed to...a wise counselor to try and reign him in." He soon added that "there's reason to be concerned about what happens — especially, when it comes to dealing with Muslim nations."
Berman
followed up by spotlighting a Tweet from Flynn on the issue of Muslims:
"Let's throw up this Tweet from Michael Flynn earlier this year. It
says, 'Fear of Muslims is rational' — and there's a
video — and it says, 'Please forward this' to other people." He asked
Gregory, "So what does this tell us about Donald Trump's worldview going
forward?" The former NBC journalist replied with his "Islamophobia" and
"ignorant" labels of the Trump appointee:
DAVID GREGORY, AUTHOR, "HOW'S YOUR FAITH?": Well, the fear is that this doubles down on his darker impulses about the Islamic world. Look...General Flynn has made fair criticisms of how this administration dealt with the rising threat that became ISIS.
But then, you jump the shark into this kind of Islamophobia...to say
that Islam is a political ideology...and not a religion; to indict four
billion Muslims around the globe — I mean, that's just short-sighted,
ignorant thinking. And that's the kind of impulse that, I think,
will give opponents of Donald Trump and watchdogs of Donald Trump a lot
of concerns.
Gregory did acknowledge that "General Flynn has received very high marks from military people that I have talked to — very high-level retired, who say that he is first rate as an intelligence analyst and gatherer." However, he wondered, "The question will be not just those impulses and those kinds of statements, but how does he lead?"
Camerota
then read the "fake news" Tweet from Flynn "that is so over the top,
it's absurd...'NYPD blows whistle on new Hillary e-mails: money
laundering, sex crimes with children, et cetera — must read' —
exclamation point. This comes from a so clearly fake news site, that
there's a gullibility that this suggests that is troubling." Johnson,
who is the political editor for the liberal website TheRoot.com, and is a
professor at Morgan State University, responded by using his
"dangerous" term about the general and with an attack on President-Elect
Trump and Steve Bannon:
JASON JOHNSON, POLITICS EDITOR, THE ROOT.COM: ...[L]et's put this in context: on Monday, President-Elect Trump selected Steve Bannon to be his senior advisor... someone who sympathizes with white nationalist groups — who are basically terrorist groups.
And now, he's got a national security advisor who has said that Muslims
should be feared; who's made very, very aggressive statements about
countries that we have to interact with across the globe; and who's also
appeared on...state-sponsored Russian television.
This is dangerous. And Tweeting out fake news suggests to me that not only is he going to continue to spread the, kind of, violent rhetoric that he did throughout the campaign, he'll continue to do it once...he's in a position of power — and that is dangerous for everyone in this country.
The transcript of the relevant portion of the panel discussion segment from CNN's New Day on November 18, 2016:
ALISYN
CAMEROTA: We want to bring in now our panel. We have CNN political
commentator and political anchor for Spectrum News, Errol Lewis;
political editor of TheRoot.com and political science and political
communications professor at Morgan State University, Jason Johnson; and
CNN political analyst David Gregory. Gentlemen, great to have you.
Errol, I'll start with you: what should we know — what jumps out at you — about General [Michael] Flynn?
[CNN Graphic: "Trump Offers Flynn Job Of National Security Advisor"]
ERROL
LOUIS, POLITICAL ANCHOR FOR TIME WARNER CABLE NEWS: General Flynn
strikes me as somebody who — very much as described — is going to, sort
of, be Trump magnified, as opposed to — like, a wise counselor to try
and reign him in. This is, of course — you know, Donald Trump's decision
to make — who is going to be, sort of, a truth-teller and a restraint;
and who's going to, sort of — you know, just go out and be a strong
right hand for him?
You
know, to the extent that he's — he's got a lot of really aggressive
designs, as far as how he intends to change foreign policy, Flynn is
right in line with that. And so, you know, those who thought that,
maybe, there was going to be — this famous word pivot; that there was
going to be a change; there was going to be a more diplomatic tone —
that's just not going to happen. And I think there's reason to be
concerned about what happens — especially, when it comes to dealing
with Muslim nations.
[CNN
Graphic: "Trump's Nat. Sec. Advisor Pick Brings Experience And
Controversy; Flynn Has In the Past Said 'Fear Of Muslims Is Rational'"]
JOHN
BERMAN: You know, on the issue of Muslims, let's throw up this Tweet
from Michael Flynn earlier this year. It says, 'Fear of Muslims is
rational' — and there's a video — and it says, 'Please forward this' to
other people — you know, 'the truth fears no questions.' David Gregory,
so — I mean, Michael Flynn is transparent about how he feels about a lot
— a lot of things. The general has made this crystal clear. So what
does this tell us about Donald Trump's worldview going forward?
DAVID
GREGORY, AUTHOR, "HOW'S YOUR FAITH?": Well, the fear is that this
doubles down on his darker impulses about the Islamic world. Look,
Michael Flynn — General Flynn — has made fair criticisms of how this
administration dealt with the rising threat that became ISIS. But then,
you jump the shark into this kind of Islamophobia — to indict — to say
that Islam is a political ideology — what he has said — and not a
religion; to indict four billion Muslims around the globe — I mean,
that's just — that's just short-sighted, ignorant thinking. And that's
the kind of impulse that, I think, will give opponents of Donald Trump
and watchdogs of Donald Trump a lot of concerns.
The
other side of the ledger is that General Flynn has received very high
marks from military people that I have talked to — very high-level
retired, who say that he is first rate as an intelligence analyst and
gatherer. But I think the question will be not just those impulses and
those kinds of statements, but how does he lead? You know, to understand
the role of national security advisor is not just the primary national
security advisor to the President, but somebody who coordinates all of
the elements of a national security team to get the best advice to the
President. If that's done well, it's very important. If it's done in a —
in clumsy fashion, you can have real discord within the administration.
So, this is an important pick.
CAMEROTA:
Jason, one more troubling thing that his Twitter feed reveals: he
Tweeted a fake news story that is so over the top, it's absurd. Let me
read it to everybody; you decide: 'NYPD blows whistle on new Hillary
e-mails: money laundering, sex crimes with children, et cetera — must
read' — exclamation point. This comes from a so clearly fake news site,
that there's a gullibility that this suggests that is troubling.
[CNN Graphic: "Flynn & Son Scrutinized For Retweeting Fake News Stories"]
JASON JOHNSON, POLITICS EDITOR, THE ROOT.COM: So, John, let's put this in context: on Monday,
President-Elect Trump selected Steve Bannon to be his senior advisor,
and this is someone who sympathizes with white nationalist groups — who
are basically terrorist groups. And now, he's got a national security
advisor who has said that Muslims should be feared; who's made very,
very aggressive statements about countries that we have to interact with
across the globe; and who's also appeared on Russian television —
state-sponsored Russian television.
This
is dangerous. And Tweeting out fake news suggests to me that not only
is he going to continue to spread the, kind of, violent rhetoric that he
did throughout the campaign, he'll continue to do it once he's in
office — once he's in a position of power — and that is dangerous for
everyone in this country.
BERMAN: Just to be clear: national security advisor requires no Senate confirmation-
JOHNSON: Exactly—
BERMAN:
If Donald Trump has asked him; if he accepts, he will be the national
security advisor. And I'll only make one point: I mean, all of these
things were known during the campaign; and the American voters knew that
General Flynn was Donald Trump's key national security advisor; and
they voted for him. So, this is a choice that the voters have already
made. We'll see how it plays out.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
The latest liberal media freak-out about the Trump transition commenced on Friday
morning upon the announcement of Republican Senator Jeff Sessions
(Ala.) as President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General and
were led by CNN’s Carol Costello lashing out at the “controversial” Sessions who should “concern” Americans and linked him to hate crimes since the election.
Turning
first to the Daily Beast’s Jackie Kucinich, Costello harped on Sessions
losing out on becoming a federal judge in the 1980s after a Justice
Department official claimed he had referred to the NAACP as “un-American” and only grew distant from the KKK upon hearing they smoked pot.
Kucinich was asked about how it will all “enter into Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing” and unlike Costello, the Daily Beast editor emphasized that he “has denied the allegations in line with that” but predicted that after they’re brought up at his hearing, she “would be really surprised if Jeff Sessions does not ultimately confirmed.”
Somehow,
the same CNN personality who laughed hysterically at Bristol Palin
being beaten up was not pleased with Kucinich not sharing the same
animosity for Sessions and shamefully tried to compare the Alabama
senator to the rise in hate crimes:
I
ask you this because many Americans are concerned about minorities at
this time. In fact, interestingly enough, the attorney general, the
present one, Loretta Lynch, just sent out a press release and this is
what it says and she's talking about attacks on minorities across the
country. She says “among other alarming trends, this new report” from
the Justice Department “showed a 67 percent increase in hate crimes
committed against Muslim Americans. It also showed increases in the
number much hate crimes committed against Jewish people.”
Costello’s
diatribe was interrupted by Vice President-elect Mike Pence’s arrival
at Trump Tower but when she could continue, she pushed the report from
Lynch that there’s been “a 67 percent increase in hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans” since the election in addition to “increases in the number of hate crimes committed against Jewish people, African-Americans, and LGBT individuals.”
With Kucinich not going along with Costello, she tried to see if CNN Politics editor Mark Preston would: “So
Mark, for that reason, I think that some in America might be concerned
about Jeff Sessions' comments even if they did take place 30 years ago.”
Preston pushed back that while “[t]here’s no doubt he will be asked this during his nomination hearing,” Costello
should keep in mind that there’s no actual (audio or video) evidence
that Sessions said the things that hurt his chances for the federal
bench:
A
couple things, though, I think we have to keep in mind. One is he has
denied making the comments so you know, it is a he said versus he said
type of issue. Second thing is, he has served in the Senate for several
terms right now and has had to address this in the past....In fact, we
have already heard from Democratic senators who say that they plan to do
so and that he should expect a full vetting, a full, fair vetting. In
the end, I think Jeff Sessions is going to get nominated and confirmed
by the U.S. Senate as the new head of the Justice Department.
Along with these facts, Costello conveniently didn’t mention how Sessions sought to honor Rosa Parks upon her death in 2009 as “one of Alabama’s most remarkable citizens” (along
with awarding her the Congressional Gold Meal) after he had previously
filed desegregation lawsuits in his state, backed the Civil Rights Act
Going
back to 2009 when Eric Holder was going through the confirmation
process, CNN sang a different tune on February 18, 2009 about President
Barack Obama’s first pick for Attorney General.
While discussing past statements by Holder displaying his dislike of this country and feelings that we’re “a nation of cowards” on race issues, CNN’s chief political analyst Gloria Borger defended Holder on that day as simply “trying to be provocative on purpose” and then-CNN personality Soledad O’Brien boasted of his attempts to kick-start an “honest conversation.”
Not surprisingly, Roland Martin also praised Holder’s lambasting of his fellow men and women in that “he’s right” and “[w]e don't want to be forcefully honest about where we stand when it comes to issues of race.”
“He
now has a platform. He is the first African-American attorney general.
He is going to have a very aggressive office of civil rights in his
department, and I think what Eric Holder was trying to do — yes, he's a
careful man; yes, he's an insider — but he also comes to this job as a
bit of an outsider, and wanted to start that conversation,” Borger added at the time.
The relevant portions of the transcript from CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello on November 18 can be found below.
CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello
November 18, 2016
10:08 p.m. Eastern
 CAROL
COSTELLO: So, where shall we start? Should we start with the attorney
general pick? Let's start with Jeff Sessions, shall we? Because there is
some controversial things about Jeff Sessions that should be brought up
in his confirmation hearing. So, Jackie, I’ll start with you. 30 years
ago, Jeff Sessions' chances of being a federal judge were sunk after a
Justice Department prosecutor testified to Congress that sessions called
the NAACP “un-American” because quote, “they try to force civil rights
down the throats of people” and because Sessions reportedly joked to the
prosecutor that the Ku Klux Klan was okay until he found out Ku Klux
Klan members smoked pot. So Jackie, how will this enter into Jeff
Sessions' confirmation hearing?
JACKIE
KUCINICH: Well, and I mean we should say that Jeff Sessions has denied
the allegations in line with that but that said, Democrats will
certainly bring this up. That said, I would be really surprised if Jeff
Sessions does not ultimately confirmed. Not only — he's a senator, these
are his colleagues and generally the president gets who he wants. I
think the larger question is what is he going to do in terms of criminal
justice reform? What does this mean in terms of immigration? I think
there are a lot of other questions that Sessions will have to answer and
maybe while he will have to address this, I don't know if this will be a
focus.
COSTELLO:
I — I will — I ask you this because many Americans are concerned about
minorities at this time. In fact, interestingly enough, the attorney
general, the present one, Loretta Lynch, just sent out a press release
and this is what it says and she's talking about attacks on minorities
across the country. She says “among other alarming trends, this new
report” from the Justice Department “showed a 67 percent increase in
hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans. It also showed increases
in the number much hate crimes committed against Jewish people.”
[LIVE FEED OF PENCE SPEAKING AFTER ARRIVAL AT TRUMP TOWER]
 COSTELLO:
Going back to what I was talking about, though, this release from the
Justice Department by the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, about attacks
on minorities since the election took place. She says the report shows a
67 percent increase in hate crimes committed against Muslim Americans.
It also showed increases in the number of hate crimes committed against
Jewish people, African-Americans, and LGBT individuals. Overall she says
“The number of reported hate crimes increased six percent, a number
that does not account for the many hate crimes that may go unreported
out of shame or fear.” So Mark, for that reason, I think that some in
America might be concerned about Jeff Sessions' comments even if they
did take place 30 years ago.
MARK
PRESTON: Yeah, no doubt and we certainly have heard this when
speculation was centering around the fact that Jeff Sessions was going
to be nominated to be the head of the Justice Department. A couple
things, though, I think we have to keep in mind. One is he has denied
making the comments so you know, it is a he said versus he said type of
issue. Second thing is, he has served in the Senate for several terms
right now and has had to address this in the past. There's no doubt he
will be asked this during his nomination hearing. In fact, we have
already heard from Democratic senators who say that they plan to do so
and that he should expect a full vetting, a full, fair vetting. In the
end, I think Jeff Sessions is going to get nominated and confirmed by
the U.S. Senate as the new head of the Justice Department. But there are
going to be a lot of questions around what he's said and what direction
he's going to take it. I do think we have to point out as well, for all
this talk about how Jeff Sessions, you know, might dismantle certain
parts of the Justice Department around civil rights, it's going to be
very difficult to do. There's no question about that and I think there's
going to be an incredible amount of scrutiny on the Trump
administration. So while the fears should certainly drive people to
maybe move to action, the fact of the matter is, it is hard to put in
place what a lot of these fears are thinking.
(....)
COSTELLO
[TO ACLU GUEST]: Now, Joanne, Jeff Sessions, a Senator who’s made
controversial statements in the far distant past, it prevented him from
becoming a federal judge under Ronald Reagan, do you think that he will
carry on with this concern, like Loretta Lynch, because there's no
reason to think he won’t because I’m sure he’s not supportive of hate
crimes.
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 Friday morning’s The View
started off with the mostly liberal panel having a meltdown over the
announcement of Trump choosing retired General Michael Flynn and
Alabama’s Senator Jeff Sessions for White House positions. Whoopi
Goldberg complained that Sessions and the right wanted to bring back
slavery and to deport Muslim Americans. Sunny Hostin then claimed that
violence was only coming from the right, while Whoopi and Behar conceded
there was violence from the left but it was deserved and provoked.
“People better not sit back and just take it,” Behar lamented. “They
[Republicans] started it,” she stated before justifying the violence as “[A] response you’re going to get.”
After
the panel complained about how hostile and hateful the right was, Paula
Faris brought up how there was actually a lot of violence coming from
the left directed towards Trump supporters or even just perceived
supporters of Trump. Sunny Hostin jumped in to deny that there was any
legitimate violence coming from the left, claiming it was mostly the
right causing violence.
SUNNY HOSTIN: To your point, Paula. I -- I -- I disagree that we're seeing it on both sides.
I think too many people are saying that. I think there’s this a false equivalency. You see protesting.
PAULA FARIS: Maybe not 50-50. But we are seeing--
HOSTIN:
I'm thinking 90-10. I think you're seeing protests. I think you’re
seeing peaceful protests 99% of the protests are peaceful.
FARIS: Last week they attacked a news crew and police officers. That's not peaceful.
HOSTIN: 99% though. That’s the honest to goodness truth.
Whoopi Goldberg agreed with Hostin, scoffing, “It’s not on both sides. We're not beating up white people,” which earned her a round of applause.
Apparently ABC is more than okay denying multiple reports of this exact thing happening.
While
Hostin preferred to stick her head in the sand and pretend that lefty
violence wasn’t happening and it was simply “peaceful protests,” Behar
and Whoopi were shockingly okay with violence against Trump supporters.
After Faris brought up attacks against individuals in Washington and New York, Behar responded, “It's a response you're going to get,” before adding:
BEHAR:
For a whole year, we have been -- we've been listening to the racist
rhetoric. Now people are angry. They started it. If someone hits you in
the face and you hit them back, who started that.
Behar also lamented that the country was being overtaken by Republicans and people “better not sit back and just take it.”
Whoopi backed up Hostin’s claim that the left wasn’t causing violence, but it was OK if they did.
WHOOPI:
It's not really on both sides. People have been attacked and that's why
they're responding. That's a lot of what is going on.
|
|
By Brad Wilmouth
In a pre-recorded piece aired on New Day Saturday,
CNN's Brian Stelter included images of two NewsBusters articles (here
and here) as he complained that many people were fooled by "BS" and
"fake news," with many sharing such material with others through social
media during the 2016 presidential election.
As
the CNN media analyst fretted that Donald Trump's campaign had
benefited from "fake news" articles, Stelter did not take the time to
inform viewers of what he found to be "fake" about the NewsBusters
articles that were authored by our Matt Philbin and contributing writer
Christian Toto.
Setting
up the report, co-host Victor Blackwell lamented: "Dozens -- and that's
probably a conservative estimate there -- of these fake news stories
were shared online during the 2016 election season."
Co-host
Christi Paul added: "And, as CNN Senior Media Correspondent Brian
Stelter shows us, they may have been read and believed by millions of
voters."
Stelter began his report by fretting that "fake news" benefited Trump as he ran for President:
Did
the spread of fake news on the Web help elect Donald Trump? We may
never know for sure, but researchers are asking the question because
made-up, false stories are polluting people's Facebook timelines and
Twitter streams.
As
articles from several websites appeared on screen, two NB articles were
among the group -- "Hypocrisy: Net Frets About Bannon; Gave
Catholic-Hating Podesta a Pass" and "Amy Schumer: Trump Voters Weak,
Clueless KKK Members." As Stelter did not specify his problem with
either article, a similar article regarding Amy Schumer, albeit with a
different headline, had appeared at the Huffington Post.
After
recalling that "Even President Obama is raising the alarm," Stelter
referred to an article from one of the other websites which falsely
claimed a protester was paid to disrupt Trump rallies. Stelter:
These
problems are not brand new, but they're becoming a lot more prevalent.
Here's an example -- a story claiming a protester was paid $3,500 to
make trouble at a Trump rally. This went viral in the campaign. It
looked like an ABC News story, but the URL reveals it's a fake
registered to a domain in Colombia. It was a hoax which tricked Trump's
campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, and Trump's son Eric, who shared it
on Twitter.
He then recounted a couple of other false stories which came from other websites:
The
Pope endorsing Trump? Fake. Fox's Megyn Kelly fired for backing Hillary
Clinton? Fake. Clinton linked to crimes by Anthony Weiner? Fake, but
that one was tweeted by retired General Michael Flynn, Trump's pick for
National Security Advisor.
After a clip of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg downplaying the problem of "fake news," Stelter continued:
Others
disagree. These fake sites are easy to set up and profitable for the
creators. Every time we click and share, they make more money, but we
are worse off. Now, Facebook and Google are banning fake sites from
making money off their ad networks. It's a first effort to choke off
some of the revenue. The bigger challenge, providing more BS detection
tools without threatening free speech.
As
articles from several websites appeared on screen, the NewsBusters
article about Amy Schumer appeared while Stelter spoke the words
"providing more BS detection tools" before being replaced by a false
article from another website about Hillary Clinton getting divorced.
As the
report was nearing its conclusion, the same two NewsBusters articles
briefly appeared among articles from other websites as Stelter warned:
The
root problem is that some people want to believe the lies. That's why
the responsibility isn't just Facebook or Google or Twitter's. We all
have to get a little smarter about what we share.
After
the pre-recorded report concluded, there was a segment in which Stelter
appeared as a guest along with Matt Masur of Venturetechnica LLC.
There
was still no explanation for why either NewsBusters piece was included
among "fake news" articles as of this post's publication. Late Saturday
afternoon, NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham demanded that
Stelter issue a correction and emphasized that all of us at NewsBusters
take issues of accuracy seriously (despite what Stelter may consciously
or erroneously think and opine to viewers):
If you can't explain where we FAKED it, @BrianStelter we at NewsBusters want a correction.
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) November 19, 2016
Anyone
who reads @newsbusters -- if you find something "Pants on Fire" or
"Fake" on NB, we will take it seriously. No flies in our soup!
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) November 19, 2016
Below is a complete transcript of the pre-recorded report from November 19's New Day Saturday on CNN:
8:32 a.m. ET
VICTOR
BLACKWELL: Dozens -- and that's probably a conservative estimate there
-- of these fake news stories were shared online during the 2016
election season.
CHRISTI
PAUL: And, as CNN Senior Media Correspondent Brian Stelter shows us,
they may have been read and believed by millions of voters.
 BRIAN
STELTER: Did the spread of fake news on the Web help elect Donald
Trump? We may never know for sure, but researchers are asking the
question because made-up, false stories are polluting (Two NewsBusters
articles briefly appear on screen next to articles from several other
websites) people's Facebook timelines and Twitter streams.
JOHN OLIVER [on HBO'S Last Week Tonight]: -this cesspool of nonsense-
GERALDO RIVERA [on FNC'S Fox&Friends]: -bogus stories-
UNIDENTIFIED MAN [on CNN Newsroom with Carol Costello]: It's horrible.
STELTER: And getting worse. Even President Obama is raising the alarm.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA CLIP #1: If we are not serious about facts and what's true and what's not-
PRESIDENT OBAMA CLIP #2: -then we have problems.
STELTER:
These problems are not brand new, but they're becoming a lot more
prevalent. Here's an example -- a story claiming a protester was paid
$3,500 to make trouble at a Trump rally. This went viral in the
campaign. It looked like an ABC News story, but the URL reveals it's a
fake registered to a domain in Colombia. It was a hoax which tricked
Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, and Trump's son Eric, who
shared it on Twitter.
ARIZONA STATE
UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR DAN GILLMOR: We have an epidemic of false
information racing around using social networks as the accelerator.
STELTER:
The Pope endorsing Trump? Fake. Fox's Megyn Kelly fired for backing
Hillary Clinton? Fake. Clinton linked to crimes by Anthony Weiner? Fake,
but that one was tweeted by retired General Michael Flynn, Trump's pick
for National Security Advisor. Now, staffers at social media giants are
doing some soul-searching. Though Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg says
Trump's election is not his fault.
MARK
ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK: You know, personally, I think the idea that, you
know, fake news on Facebook of which, you know, it's a very small amount
of the content, influenced the election in any way, I think, is a crazy
idea.
STELTER:
Others disagree. These fake sites are easy to set up and profitable for
the creators. Every time we click and share, they make more money, but
we are worse off. Now, Facebook and Google are banning fake sites from
making money off their ad networks. It's a first effort to choke off
some of the revenue. The bigger challenge, (One NewsBusters article is
briefly shown on screen) providing more BS detection tools without
threatening free speech.
GILLMOR:
Suddenly, they have these, I think, these social, societal duties to
help us not be faked out all the time. And yet, I don't want the terms
of service of one company or two or three companies to have more
influence than the First Amendment.
(The same two NewsBusters articles are briefly seen again before being covered by articles from other websites)
STELTER:
The root problem is that some people want to believe the lies. That's
why the responsibility isn't just Facebook or Google or Twitter's. We
all have to get a little smarter about what we share.
GILLMOR CLIP #1: We have to be relentlessly skeptical of absolutely everything.
GILLMOR
CLIP #2: We have to go outside of our personal comfort zones, and read
and watch and listen to things that are bound to make our blood boil.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment