| |
|
By Rich Noyes
 CNN claims it’s right down the middle, somewhere between the left-wing MSNBC and the more conservative-friendly Fox News Channel. But an MRC study of an entire day of CNN’s coverage shows the network spent almost all of its time covering the Trump presidency, with a heavily skewed roster of anti-Trump guests and on-air commentators.
To get a handle on CNN’s news priorities during the Trump era, a team of MRC analysts reviewed all of the cable network’s programming on Friday, May 12, starting with the 4am ET Early Start and continuing through the 11pm ET CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, a total of 20 hours of material.
After excluding commercials, teases and promos, our analysts found 13 hours, 27 minutes of actual news coverage, an average of just over 40 minutes per hour. Of that, a whopping 92 percent (12 hours, 19 minutes) was devoted to the Trump presidency, with a mere 68 minutes — a little more than three minutes per hour — devoted to all of the other news of the day.
With the exception of about 21 minutes of live coverage of a White House briefing about the President’s upcoming trip to the Middle East and a smattering of coverage of Melissa McCarthy’s parody of White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer in an upcoming SNLappearance, CNN used that time to endlessly analyze the President’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, then a three-day-old story.
Much of that airtime consisted of interviews and panel discussions giving their assessment of Trump. MRC tallied 123 appearances by guests or panelists over the course of the day. Many of CNN’s analysts showed up in multiple newscasts, each of which would count as a separate appearance. (There were 77 unique appearances by people identified as CNN analysts or commentators, or 62% of all guests).
The vast majority of all of CNN’s guests that day (96, or 78% of the total) were Trump critics, compared to a handful of pro-Trump guests (just seven, or 6% of the total). Another 13 guests were neutral, and seven offered mixed assessments of the administration.
Looking just at CNN’s own on-air talent, the results were even more tilted, with 69 appearances by anti-Trump analysts, vs. just two for pro-Trump analysts — CNN political commentator Paris Dennard, who appeared during the latter half of the 3:00pm ET hour, and CNN political commentator Jason Miller, a former Trump campaign aide, who appeared in the 8pm ET hour of Anderson Cooper 360.
CNN counter-terrorism analyst Phil Mudd, for example, harshly condemned the President during appearances in the 6am, 8am, 11am, 5pm, 8pm, and 9pm ET hours. “Give the President of the United States a pacifier and a rattle and put him in the crib,” Mudd declared during his 11am ET appearance.
 Nine hours later, Mudd was asked about those comments by 8pm anchor Anderson Cooper. “The President is losing credibility by the day for childish comments that undercut his ability to have traction as President,” Mudd repeated.
During the 6am hour of New Day, CNN political analyst David Gregory claimed Trump’s firing of Comey “undermine[d] our democratic institutions.” During the 9am hour of CNN Newsroom, weekend host Brian Stelter popped up to claim that “the story of the first 100 days was dishonesty. So far, the biggest story of the second 100 days has been dishonest.”
Soon after the start of the 1pm ET Wolf, CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger said she detected in the Comey story “the kind of bullying tactics that he [Trump] used when he was a businessman. When people would disagree with him, he would bully them, and bully them, and bully them.”
Later, in the 3pm ET hour of Newsroom, CNN political commentator Ana Navarro, a Jeb Bush supporter during the primaries, said Republicans needed to rally against the President: “I’m very troubled by the escalation of Donald Trump’s behavior, of President Trump’s tweets....So many Americans feel that the government is in crisis.”
 During the 8pm hour of AC360, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin complained that some “were normalizing behavior that would have been seen as completely outrageous by any other President.” Then in the 10pmhour of CNN Tonight, weekend host Fareed Zakaria said Trump’s suggestion that he might have taped a conversation with Comey was “bullshit,” sniffing that “this is the farcical version of Watergate, where the guy says, ‘I’ve got a tape,’ and actually he’s got nothing in his hands.”
The imbalance in guests was amplified by the frequent editorializing of CNN’s own hosts and anchors. During the 7am hour of New Day, host Chris Cuomo referred to clips of White House officials struggling to explain the decision to fire Comey as “the mendacity montage, because it’s just filled with lies.”
Opening his noon-hour Inside Politics, CNN host John King hyped that the “initial White House account of how and why Comey was fired lies in shambles, reduced to a heap of falsehoods.”
This review looked at just a single day, but the pattern is overwhelming: CNN is providing nearly wall-to-wall coverage of the Trump presidency, and is anything but down-the-middle in their approach.
Thanks to MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens and Mike Ciandella for assisting in the research for this article.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
While NBC and CNN joined the rest of the media in rushing to condemn the Trump White House over an unconfirmed Washington Post report that the President inadvertently shared classified information with Russian officials, guests on both networks provided important context that the Obama administration intentionally shared classified intelligence with Russia less than a year ago.
Appearing on Friday’s NBC Today, security analyst Juan Zarate warned: “The problem is the Russians aren’t trustworthy. The Russians have proven that when we’ve provided information in the past, they’ve used it against us.” He then proceeded to explain how former President Obama gave the Russians classified information just months ago:
Back in the summer of 2016, the Obama administration provided some information to the Russians about some of the things happening on the ground. Guess what happened? The Russians then attacked some of those sites of our allies, our proxies that we were working with. And that’s a problem.
Meanwhile, over on CNN’s New Day, political analyst Jeffrey Lord provided some “perspective” to anchor Chris Cuomo:
The only thing I would say here, Chris is perspective. Perspective is all. I'm holding two headlines from the Washington Post, one of May 25th, 2014, “White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan.” The Obama administration put the name of the CIA on the press release, exposed him and endangered his life. The second one, June 30, 2016, “U.S. Offers to share Syrian intelligence on terrorist with Russia,” which is to say the Obama administration wanted to give their intelligence to the Russians. All I'm saying here is there’s perspective. We need to find out the facts and let’s have perspective.
Incidentally, notice that the 2014 story was from the same Post reporter, Greg Miller, who wrote Monday's article.
In sharp contrast to the wall-to-wall media coverage of the Trump story, Obama offering to share intel with Russia was greeted with yawns from the press.
Here are excerpts of the May 16 exchanges on NBC and CNN:
Today
7:10 AM ET
(...)
MATT LAUER: Can you just clarify something? This concerns an ISIS plot. The Russians are supposed to be our partners in fighting ISIS. So explain why sharing of information with them is so dangerous.
 JUAN ZARATE: Well, two reasons. First of all, I think the President may think that he’s trying to create some degree of trust, maybe trying to create some cooperation on the ground. That may be in the back of his mind. The problem is the Russians aren’t trustworthy. The Russians have proven that when we’ve provided information in the past, they’ve used it against us.
Back in the summer of 2016, the Obama administration provided some information to the Russians about some of the things happening on the ground. Guess what happened? The Russians then attacked some of those sites of our allies, our proxies that we were working with. And that’s a problem.
And I think part of the challenge here is, how much can we trust the Russians? What you’re seeing here is a deficit of trust, a deficit of discipline, I think, on the part of the President.
(...)
New Day
6:34 AM ET
CHRIS CUOMO: All right. This latest self-imposed and perhaps most egregious error by the president is sparking all kinds of questions about competence, was his inability to protect highly classified information with Russian diplomats a sign that he's not up to the job. There's a New York Times op-ed you should read for your self from David Brooks. The headline is this, when the world is led by a child. It says, quote, “From all we know so far, Trump didn't do it,” talking about the classified information, “because he's a Russian agent or from any malevolent intent. He did it because he is sloppy, because he lacks all impulse control, and above all because he is a 7-year-old boy desperate for the approval of those he admires.” Let’s discuss Jeffrey Lord, former commentator and White House official and David from senior editor at the Atlantic. Jeffrey, I'm sure you have a robust defense for why this is a nor his criticism of the president is unwarranted so give it to us.
JEFFERY LORD: Okay. The only thing I would say here, Chris is perspective. Perspective is all. I'm holding two headlines from the Washington Post, one of May 25th, 2014, “White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan.” The Obama administration put the name of the CIA on the press release, exposed him and endangered his life. The second one, June 30, 2016, "U.S. Offers to share Syrian intelligence on terrorist with Russia," which is to say the Obama administration wanted to give their intelligence to the Russians. All I'm saying here is there's perspective. We need to find out the facts and let's have perspective. With all respect to David Brooks he's a never-Trumper. That's fine. But from that perspective, Donald Trump isn't going to do anything David Brooks likes. As I remember famously with David Brooks, he was certain Senator Obama would be a great president because of the crease in his slacks. I mean, with all due respect --
CUOMO: That was a rhetorical flourish from Brooks but let's put that to the side, you've made your point.
(...)
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 Another alleged “bombshell” fell on Washington, D.C. Tuesday, this one in the form of a memo Comey supposedly left for himself in his Russia investigation file. According to The New York Times, who had the unclassified memo read to them by a Comey associate over the phone, it purported claims that Trump pressured Comey to end the FBI investigation into Mike Flynn. Every member of the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) rushed to shout the claims, but none of them have actually seen the memo first hand.
“Tonight, breaking news as we come on, what could be a new bombshell. Did President Trump ask former FBI director James Comey -- to shut down the federal investigation into retired general Michael Flynn,” hyped ABC’s superficial Anchor David Muir during the opening tease for World News Tonight. He followed that up with: “Pierre, you’ve actually confirmed this evening that Comey did write a memo to document his interaction with President Trump.”
But according to Pierre Thomas’ own report to Muir, he did not see the memo himself. “The source said he's seen the Comey memo and he confirmed the quote to The New York Times specifically,” he told Muir in response. Of course, this important piece of information was reserved for near the end of their memo coverage.
On CBS Evening News, Anchor Scott Pelley declared in the opening tease that “A source tells CBS News that President Trump asked the FBI Director to end his investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.” “This story was first reported this evening by The New York Times, but our source has confirmed the contents of the memo,” Pelley added, admitting that CBS was getting their information from somewhere else.
NBC Nightly News also played up the dubious memo, but they were the only network to go out of their way to note that no one has actually seen it outside of the anonymous source. According to Justice Correspondent Pete Williams:
None of this comes from Mr. Comey directly. He has yet to say anything publicly since he was fired a week ago tonight, but he did tell friends and a few people at the FBI about what he wrote in that memo at the time and they're the ones describing it now … First is to try and get the actual Comey memo and not just rely just on people who can tell us what it said, to see what it said and then perhaps talk to Mr. Comey.
Despite their championing of a mysterious memo alleging impropriety by the President of the United States, it’s easily challenged by the simple fact that acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified to the Senate last week that there has been no interference in their investigations by the Trump administration.
On ABC, Senior White House Correspondent downplayed McCabe’s testimony as just some sort of defiant statement meant for the White House:
VEGA: The acting director coming to Comey's defense last week.
SENATOR: Is it the accurate that rank and file no longer supported director Comey.
ANDREW MCCABE: No sir, that is not accurate.
VEGA: But he said you can't stop the FBI from doing the right thing.
MCCABE: So, they has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.
ABC was the only network to mention that The New York Times never actually handled the memo themselves, but rather had a Comey associate read it to them.
After playing a clip of McCabe’s testimony, CBS Justice Correspondent Jeff Pegues dismissed it and instead relied on an anonymous source of his own who told him otherwise. “But a law enforcement source told CBS News there is a whole lot of interfering happening. Comey was fired last week, and the President said it was because of his handling of the Russia investigation,” he reported. In essence, Pegues is asserting that the acting FBI Director lied to the Senate.
Pegues’ remark about why Comey was fired was misleading as well. That narrative was damaged by ABC’s Jon Karl on Sunday. “I don't think that President Trump was saying ‘I fired him because of the Russia investigation,’” he told Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos. “I think what he was really saying is: that on the idea that there would be massive blowback cause he was firing the guy in terms of the investigation, he was not worried about the blowback because he thinks the Russian investigation is nothing,”
 In a rather ridiculous manner, NBC’s Chuck Todd painted a very dire future for the Republican Party because of this. “ Well look, this is a gut check moment now for Congressional Republicans,” he opined to Anchor Lester Holt. “ They've already been taking on a lot of water politically either having to defend or deflect actions by President Trump … This raises the stakes thought to a whole new level.”
Todd pointed to the firing of Comey as a problem that was causing the GOP to “take on a lot of water.” But according to NBC’s own polling data, the public is really up in the air about how they feel about it. Their data says 29 percent approve of the firing, 38 percent disapprove, and 32 percent didn’t know enough to say, while one percent were unsure.
Thomas also touted how the FBI was coming out in support of Comey. "David, what you're seeing as a lot of people coming to the defense of Comey who believe he's a man of integrity and honor, not perfect, but a man of integrity," he glorified. "[They] are extremely angry at the way Comey was fired. They also openly reject the White House claims that Comey did not have broad support in the Bureau."
This reporting by the Big Three Networks was highly disturbing, especially when it’s realized that all of their hyperventilating was over a memo that literally none of them have gotten their hands on. And they failed to ask the simple questions regarding the obvious red flags.
Why hasn’t anyone actually seen the unclassified memo? If the memo is in the hands of close Comey associates at the FBI as Williams claims, then why wasn’t McCabe (Comey’s deputy director) one of them? If these are associates of Comey's, do they have an ulterior motive?
The answer is because they don’t actually care. These are the same people who rushed to report that Comey had requested additional resources for the Russia investigation; rushed to link Comey’s firing to Russia; rushed to compare Trump to Nixon and Watergate. All of that turned out to either categorically false or biased liberal opinion passed off as news. They’re only interested in doing as much damage as they can, with the facts taking a back seat and wearing no seatbelt.
Transcripts below:
ABC
World News Tonight
May 16, 2017
6:30:16 PM Eastern
DAVID MUIR: Tonight, breaking news as we come on, what could be a new bombshell. Did President Trump ask former FBI director James Comey -- to shut down the federal investigation into retired general Michael Flynn, the national security adviser who survived just 24 days on the job? The New York Times reporting moments ago, the President said to Comey, "I hope you can let this go." Comey was fired last week.
…
6:31:23 PM Eastern
MUIR: Good evening. It's great to have you with us here on a Tuesday night. And we begin with that breaking headline as we come on the air. Tonight, our team now confirming a report late today in The New York Times that fired FBI director James Comey wrote a memo, documenting some of his interaction with President Trump.And tonight this question, did the President ask James Comey to, quote, “let this go” while talking about the investigation into this man, retired general Michael Flynn, and Russia. Flynn, or course, resigned a few days into the administration. Comey was fired one week ago tonight.
…
 CECILIA VEGA: The New York Times, who first reported the memo, says it was part of a paper trail Comey wanted to leave behind as evidence of what he called improper influence into his investigation. The Times didn't view a copy of that memo. But says associates of Comey read it to a reporter. Tonight, the White House is disputing the story. Saying in statement: “The President has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn… This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the President and Mr. Comey.”
…
VEGA: The acting director coming to Comey's defense last week.
SENATOR: Is it the accurate that rank and file no longer supported director Comey.
ANDREW MCCABE: No sir, that is not accurate.
VEGA: But he said you can't stop the FBI from doing the right thing.
MCCABE: So, they has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.
…
MUIR: Pierre, you’ve actually confirmed this evening that Comey did write a memo to document his interaction with President Trump. And the source telling you that the President allegedly asked him to essentially go easy on Flynn?
PIERRE THOMAS: David, the source said he's seen the Comey memo and he confirmed the quote to The New York Times specifically. President Trump allegedly saying, “I hope you can let this go. He's a good guy.” David, what you're seeing as a lot of people coming to the defense of Comey who believe he's a man of integrity and honor, not perfect, but a man of integrity.
In terms of the mood at the FBI they're professionals, they’re carrying on their work. But make no mistake, many inside the FBI and a number of former agents I heard from directly with are extremely angry at the way Comey was fired. They're also openly reject the White House claims that Comey did not have broad support in the Bureau. And they’re showing disdain for the President’s description of Comey not being competent. They’re now hoping for a new director who doesn't have any hint of partisan ship.
…
...
 CBS Evening NewsMay 16, 2017 6:30:20 PM Eastern
SCOTT PELLEY [Tease] Breaking news: A source tells CBS News that President Trump asked the FBI Director to end his investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
…
6:31:20 PM Eastern
PELLEY: The former FBI Director James Comey, fired last week by President Trump, wrote a memo claiming that the President tried to shut down the FBIs investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. This story was first reported this evening by The New York Times, but our source has confirmed the contents of the memo. Comey wrote the memo after meeting with the President. He notes that President Trump said that he hoped Comey would "let go" of the Flynn investigation. Presidents usually try not to influence FBI investigations of their administrations to avoid the appearance of obstruction of justice. Tonight the White House denies that the president tried to shut down the investigation, and our justice correspondent Jeff Pegues has more of the breaking news.
…
JEFF PEGUES: Comey wrote up a memo about the meeting with the President. In it he said that Mr. Trump had asked him to drop the Flynn investigation. "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go," he wrote. "He is a good guy." A senior White House official denied that account and said “the President never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn.” Just last week acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told congress there has been no interference in the Russia investigation.
ANDREW MCCABE: So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.
PEGUES: But a law enforcement source told CBS News there is a whole lot of interfering happening. Comey was fired last week, and the President said it was because of his handling of the Russia investigation.
…
...
 NBC Nightly NewsMay 16, 2017 7:03:31 PM Eastern
PETE WILLIAMS: None of this comes from Mr. Comey directly. He has yet to say anything publicly since he was fired a week ago tonight, but he did tell friends and a few people at the FBI about what he wrote in that memo at the time and they're the ones describing it now.And people at the FBI strongly believe that Comey was fired because he wouldn't shut down the entire Russia investigation. Lester.
LESTER HOLT: Pete, I know you've been talking to legal experts and sources. What are they saying about possible criminal action here?
WILLIAMS: Well not surprisingly, they say it depends. First is to try and get the actual Comey memo and not just rely just on people who can tell us what it said, to see what it said and then perhaps talk to Mr. Comey. It all comes down to the person's intent, what did the President have in mind? Did he actually intend to try to shut down the investigation or was he just saying he hoped it would end, Lester.
…
CHUCK TODD: Well look, this is a gut check moment now for Congressional Republicans. They've already been taking on a lot of water politically either having to defend or deflect actions by President Trump. You know, just today many Republicans were not wanting to see any cameras running around Capitol Hill, not wanting to comment on the story you're about to report on next, which is this issue of the President sharing classified information for the Russians.
This raises the stakes thought to a whole new level. This becomes this -- introduces this idea of obstruction of justice. If there’s a memo, now Congressional Republicans even though it's their own Party's president they will have no choice but to start issuing subpoenas.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
During Tuesday’s Situation Room, CNN host Wolf Blitzer repeatedly nudged guests to accept the notion of impeaching President Donald Trump following a New York Timespiece claiming that Trump told then-FBI Director James Comey in February to end the Mike Flynn probe.
Blitzer was speaking to liberal Senator Angus King (I-Maine) when he played the role of lawyer in leading King to the conclusion about Trump being impeached, first asking “what should happen” to Trump if the Times story “is all true and confirmed.”
King then hinted at the process of impeachment, stating that “you’re getting very close to the legal definition of obstruction of justice and what happens next will rest largely in the House of Representatives.”
After King incorrectly claimed that only two Presidents have been impeached in Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon (when it was just Johnson and Bill Clinton), Blitzer tacitly promoted impeachment:
I just want to be clear. If, in fact these allegations reported first in The New York Timesand now being confirmed by CNN and other news organizations, if these allegations, Senator, are true, are we getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?
King replied: “Reluctantly Wolf, I have to say yes, simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense and I say it with sadness and reluctance. I’m not — this is not something I advocated for.”
Blitzer upped the hysteria a few moments alter with CNN correspondent and former Obama official Jim Sciutto:
Jim, what a moment right now coming — what? Only a couple days before the President is scheduled to leave the United States for his first overseas trip beginning in Saudi Arabia, then Israel, then the Vatican, then Italy. This is — this is a — this is a moment in American history.
Speaking to former Obama official Susan Hennessey (without disclosing her Obama connection), he again invoked the i-word:
Susan, The New York Times, as you know, they first reported this. They have a quote from the memo that Comey wrote a memo that President asking Comey, “I hope you can let this go.” Do you believe that if this is accurate, this would be obstruction of justice and could it be impeachable?
Blitzer again tried right before the 7:00 p.m. Eastern mark with former Nixon official John Dean. The CNN host alluded to Dean’s role as Nixon’s White House counselor and asked if “what's happening now in these past couple of hours, does this seem familiar to you.”
“Oh, boy, does it. If you'll think back, Wolf, this is a direct parallel to what was in the smoking gun tape where the President asked the CIA to intervene and halt the FBI investigation and that, of course, ended his presidency,” Dean responded.
Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript from CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on May 16:
CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
May 16, 2017
6:18 p.m. Eastern
 WOLF BLITZER: If that is all true and confirmed, what should happen to the President?
INDEPENDENT SENATOR ANGUS KING (Maine) Well, if that's true and confirmed, I think you’re getting very close to the legal definition of obstruction of justice and what happens next will rest largely in the House of Representatives. It could come here to the Senate. This is very serious stuff and we should be very careful about this. We don't want to get into the situation where we're changing our President based upon any kind of political considerations. The Constitution was very clear. It has to be high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not something that we differ politically or we think a President is taking positions that we don't agree with on policy. It has to be, as I say, high crimes and misdemeanors is the definition. We've only had one President impeached in American history. Actually, we’ve had two. Johnson and Nixon. Nixon was not convicted. As you know, he resigned, but obstruction of justice is a very, very serious matter and we’re going to have to wait and see what the — what the terms were. We have to hear from Director Comey and also, if the White House has been saying all day that this never happened, then I think they should come forth with whatever evidence that they have, whether it’s tapes or notes made by someone at the White House to contradict this because, as I say, Jim Comey has a pretty serious credibility with everybody who I know that's ever worked with him.
BLITZER: Yeah. President Bill Clinton, as you know, he was impeached in the House of Representatives but not convicted, acquitted when it came up it a formal trial in the United States Senate. I just want to be clear. If, in fact these allegations reported first in The New York Times and now being confirmed by CNN and other news organizations, if these allegations, Senator, are true, are we getting closer and closer to the possibility of yet another impeachment process?
KING: Reluctantly Wolf, I have to say yes, simply because obstruction of justice is such a serious offense and I say it with sadness and reluctance. I’m not — this is not something I advocated for and the word has not passed my lips in this whole tumultuous three or four months. But if indeed the President tried to convince the FBI Director who worked for him that he should drop an investigation, whether it was Michael Flynn or some investigation that had nothing to do with Russia or politics or the election, it’s — that's a very serious matter.
(....)
BLITZER [TO JIM SCUITTO]: Jim, what a moment right now coming — what? Only a couple days before the President is scheduled to leave the United States for his first overseas trip beginning in Saudi Arabia, then Israel, then the Vatican, then Italy. This is — this is a — this is a moment in American history.
(....)
BLITZER [TO SUSAN HENNESSEY]: Susan, The New York Times, as you know, they first reported this. They have a quote from the memo that Comey wrote a memo that President asking Comey, “I hope you can let this go.” Do you believe that if this is accurate, this would be obstruction of justice and could it be impeachable?
 (....)
BLITZER: John Dean, our viewers, of course, remember you were White House counsel during the Nixon administration. So what's happening now in these past couple of hours, does this seem familiar to you?
JOHN DEAN: Oh, boy, does it. If you'll think back, Wolf, this is a direct parallel to what was in the smoking gun tape where the President asked the CIA to intervene and halt the FBI investigation and that, of course, ended his presidency.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 A week to the day after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, a memo he purportedly written claiming Trump asked him to end the Mike Flynn investigation was leaked to The New York Times. In the aftermath of the first story, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin flew off the handle and compared it Watergate. A week later, Toobin was again jumping to conclusions and ignoring the sketchy facts. “ Three words: Obstruction of justice,” he exclaimed to Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room.
“Telling the FBI director to close down an investigation of your senior campaign adviser for his activities during your campaign for president, if that's true, that is obstruction of justice,” he continued to opine. But even though Toobin qualified his remarks with “if that’s true” it was blatantly obvious that he was banking on the shocking accusation to be accurate.
Un-ironically, Toobin lectured about how to put together evidence to corroborate a story. “When you have two people with contradictory versions of a conversation, what you look at is-- you look at their demeanor, you look at their motives to lie. But you also look at corroboration,” he told Blitzer. He also explained that:
This is how trials work. Is that you don't just sort of throw up your hands, and decide one person is telling the truth and one person is lying. You look at all the surrounding circumstances and try to find corroborated notes by either person, videos, and of course, you know, the issue that hangs out here even more important is are there White House tapes.
As much as Toobin asserts that “you look at all the surrounding circumstances,” he failed to do that in this case. Because if he did, or didn’t have a controlling bias, he would’ve realized that the circumstances and accusations are quite shady.
The Times admits to never actually seeing the unclassified memo. According to their own reporting, an associate of Comey’s, who they didn’t name, read it to them over the phone to them. “The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of the memo to a Times reporter,” they wrote. That should’ve been the first set of alarm bells that went off for Toobin.
The second set of alarms should’ve been set off by the fact that the memo contradicts the sworn testimony of the acting FBI director. In his testimony to a Senate committee following the firing of Comey, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Senators that the Trump administration had not tried to interfere with the Russia investigation.
CNN even reported that fact, saying: “The acting FBI director also said there has been no effort to impede the FBI's investigation into Russian interference in the election, but vowed to inform a Senate panel if the White House tried to intervene.”
It’s clear that Toobin had tunnel vision focus on Trump being guilty without taking in “all the surrounding circumstances.” This is also another instance of the media taking the claims of anonymous sources and running with them before the authenticity can be verified.
Transcript below:
CNN
The Situation Room
May 16, 2017
5:36:18 PM Eastern
WOLF BLITZER: Jeffrey Toobin, you're our senior legal analyst, the third sentence in this article of The New York Times says this, “the existence of Mr. Trump's request is the clearest evidence that the President has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and FBI investigation into links between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia. You're reaction to this bombshell report and the White House denial.
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Three words: Obstruction of justice. Telling the FBI director to close down an investigation of your senior campaign adviser for his activities during your campaign for president, if that's true, that is obstruction of justice. Why do you think director Comey wrote a memo to the file about it? Because he was so appalled that a president of the United States would behave in this way. “Close it down” is an instruction to stop investigating President Trump's campaign.
Richard Nixon was impeached in 1974 for telling the FBI to stop an investigation of his campaign. That's what Watergate was, and, you know, if Comey was telling the truth in this memo, and obviously there's a dispute about that from the FBI -- from the White House, but if he's telling the truth, I don't know how anyone can see this comment in anything but obstruction of justice.
…
5:52:55 PM Eastern
TOOBIN: Virtually every federal criminal trial involves what's called FBI 302s, which are the record -- which are the notes typed up of every interview, every act that an FBI agent participates in.
But let me raise another point that I think is very important here. It's the issue of corroboration. When you have two people with contradictory versions of a conversation, what you look at is-- you look at their demeanor, you look at their motives to lie. But you also look at corroboration. And there's a very important point in Michael Schmidt's story here that can be corroborated or not. He says, Michael Schmidt, says in The Times story that this is a group meeting including Vice President Pence and Attorney General Sessions, which ended and then President Trump asked Comey to meet him one on one.
Will Pence and Sessions corroborate that there was this separate meeting between Trump and Comey. If they will corroborate there was a one on one meeting. That is a significant factor. It’s not the only one, but a significant factor that would corroborate James Comey's version of events. This is how trials work. Is that you don't just sort of throw up your hands, and decide one person is telling the truth and one person is lying. You look at all the surrounding circumstances and try to find corroborated notes by either person, videos, and of course, you know, the issue that hangs out here even more important is are there White House tapes.
President trump was very coy about that. He suggested they were and then wouldn't answer questions about it. But the question of whether there are tapes and whether this conversation, if it took place between Comey and Trump was tape recorded now becomes quite possibly the most important thing in determining whether Donald Trump completes his term in office.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Amidst the explosive New York Times story on Tuesday night about the supposed James Comey memo, MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews informed viewers that the two institutions he’s most entrusted his faith in during these tumultuous times are large, liberal newspapers and lefty bureaucrats in the mold of Sally Yates.
Late in the commercial-free Hardball, Matthews stated out of the blue that “I have confidence in two forces” to tell him the truth and maintain integrity, with the first being “straight front page media.”
Matthews meant to allude to The Washington Post, but in classic Matthews fashion, he name-checked The Wall Street Journal twice:
I think it's better than it's ever been in years. I think the trade craft of the top metropolitan papers is unbelievable right now, the people we have on the program from the Times and Journal especially and, in some cases, The Wall Street Journal as well.
As for his second institution, he cited government workers:
And I also have faith in the civil service. I think people like Sally Yates save us every day of the week. I think those people do their jobs. They’re not — some of them may be Democrats and liberals even progressives, but they do their job and uphold their service. I think Trump can't stand either one of those two groups because they confound him and limit his power and he hates that.
This assertion probably resonated with few Americans, but the other noteworthy pattern was Matthews claiming that Senator Angus King (I-Maine) is a “middle of the roader”and thus his calls for Trump’s impeachment should be taken seriously.
King must have realized after CNN’s Wolf Blitzer nudged him in that direction it worked, so the roles were reversed as King’s insistence on impeachment left Matthews convinced.
Turning to Washington Post reporter Greg Miller and USA Today’s Heidi Przybyla, Matthews exclaimed what a statement by “an independent” and “pretty much a middle-of-the-roader.” Later in the show, Matthews hailed the “moderate” King as someone who’s maybe the only one left in the Senate whose politics are “prudent.”
If King is this bipartisan as Matthews claims, that’s fake news. According to the American Conservative Union scorecard, King’s lifetime rating is a whopping 6.25 out of 100. That’s certainly not indicative of a moderate like, say, Congressman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), whose lifetime ACU score is 58.67.
Here’s the relevant portions of the transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on May 16:
MSNBC’s Hardball
May 16, 2017
7:13 p.m. Eastern
 CHRIS MATTHEWS: If turns out that the evidence is solid, that the then-FBI director had contemporaneous and accurate notes of a conversation he had with the President of the United States in which the President of the United States asked him to drop a case against his then-National Security Adviser, if that's the case and later on he fires that FBI director and the causality is fairly very implicit there, is that a case for obstruction of justice, Senator? Or else, why are we investigating this if it doesn't have that value? In other words, if doesn’t lead to a prosecution or an impeachment, why are we studying this case at all?
(....)
MATTHEWS: You just heard him say that the definitely that the Senator just said he's an independent. I think he’s pretty much a middle-of-the-roader. He said the evidence they're looking at right now, if they get it, is serious business. This is going to be an obstruction of justice charge, an article of impeachment basically.
GREG MILLER: Yeah, I mean, so these stories of the last few days, they take you in similar but slightly different directions. This story about what he's disclosing to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, that really gets to the sort of his fitness for office. What is he doing? Why does he do this stuff?
(....)
MATTHEWS [TO JEFF MERKLEY]: You heard your colleague, Angus King, an independent who votes with the Democrats from Maine who’s talking about wanting to get more information. But it's the information he wants. As he said, Jack Webb, just the facts. But the facts he's looking for are a confirmation of what's been reported, which is there's a memo out there that said the President tried to get the case dropped against the guy who was trying to get immunity so he could perhaps testify against the President. This is very much connected to Russia and Trump. You just need those two words to cover the news lately — Russia and Trump. They're useful proper nouns that get you through all of this. Explain. What do you think of this impeachment possibility? What's more needed to prove obstruction of justice than the President fires the guy coming after him after asking him to drop the case? At more do you need?
(....)
MATTHEWS: We just had a United States Senator on, a moderate. I think if there are any left, it's Angus King. That name by the way. Angus King, Maine, independent. I think he's pretty prudent in his politics and Maine is too and he said it's a question of getting the evidence, but he's also saying if you go down that road and find the evidence the President did in fact offer — ask this guy to drop the case, you are going down the alley that takes you, with the proper evidence, to a charge of obstruction of justice, which is impeachable. It’s a high crime.
(....)
 MATTHEWS: You know, I have confidence in two forces — straight front page media. I think it's better than it's ever been in years. I think the trade craft of the top metropolitan papers is unbelievable right now, the people we have on the program from the Times and Journal especially and, in some cases, The Wall Street Journal as well. And I also have faith in the civil service. I think people like Sally Yates save us every day of the week. I think those people do their jobs. They’re not — some of them may be Democrats and liberals even progressives, but they do their job and uphold their service. I think Trump can't stand either one of those two groups because they confound him and limit his power and he hates that.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Bless his heart. In a Tuesday night Facebook rant reacting to The New York Times story on the Comey memo, disgraced former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather lost his mind, lecturing readers that the power of prayer “will not be enough” to save the country from the supposed crimes and evils being perpetrated by the Trump administration.
The fake news offender admitted that he’s “end[ed] each of my days with a silent prayer for my country,” but he immediately conceded that “as of late I feel an anxiety gripping my heart and a sadness permeating my soul that seems unlike anything I have felt before.”
As a follower of Christ, it’s fair to say that everyone has moments of doubt and unbelief when things aren’t going our way or things we perceive as bad things have occurred. However, Rather’s concoction of a false idol in the form of anti-Trumpism isn’t boding well for him.
Rather’s post became even more melodramatic as he claimed he’s hoping “as I slip off to sleep that our rapid descent into governmental chaos has hit a nadir - only to awaken to a new set of incoherent tweets or explosive headlines from top-notch reporters.”
“And with that, we are falling once again. As I fall, we fall, even further, I pray again that our Constitutional government, the great gift of our Founding Fathers, will provide a safety net to catch us before everything we hold dear is no more. I believe that is the case, but the slowly rising level of uncertainty is not to be ignored,”Rather continued.
Rather then listed eight statements about things he’s seeing right now in the country and corresponding negative emotions, with the first two on leadership and “politicians putting power and politics over principle” that has all made him “incredulous.”
The third is particularly funny, as he stated that he “see[s] lies treated as truths... and I am disgusted.” Rather’s 2004 fake news report on then-President George W. Bush was a huge nail in the coffin of the media’s credibility, so that’s worth keeping in mind whenever Rather talks about lies.
Continuing on with complaints about “justice being denied,” “norms flaunted,” and“global challenges going unaddressed,” he responded with emotions of fear, anger, and worry. The media came up as well, with Rather whining that the media is “under attack” and thus he’s furious.
Rather’s seventh statement ruled that everything has made him “exhausted” and in turn led him to alluding to how the country “somehow overcame” “dark days from the past” like Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, Watergate, and 9/11, but wasn’t so sure about this.
So, this Comey memo and the Russia investigation is somehow not able to be remedied with prayer but those far more horrifying and deadly events were? That’s not how prayer and faith works.
“We somehow overcame. And I do believe that we shall overcome, someday. Perhaps, hopefully, someday soon. But in the end, prayer will not be enough. Action, sustained action, will be required,” the liberal activists masquerading as a newsman concluded.
Nowhere in this did Rather cite Scripture from any number of Psalms, whether it’s the famous Psalm 23, 26-27, 37, or 118. Going further, Jesus told His disciples in his farewell discourse (as per John 14) to “[l]et not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.”
If he is indeed a person of faith and Christian, Rather or any downtrodden lefties should take solace in Romans 13, which explained how, while we should respect our governments and other authorities, God is the ultimate authority and in our midst.
This could go on and on, but here’s one last one via Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
While it’s perfectly fine to stand with/against the Trump administration, becoming unglued won’t solve anything. For those that somehow view Rather as a serious figure, they should expect more than this desperate assertion that prayer won’t remedy what they believe are crimes.
Here’s the full transcript of Rather’s May 16 Facebook post:
I end each of my days with a silent prayer for my country. It has been a ritual for some time, but as of late I feel an anxiety gripping my heart and a sadness permeating my soul that seems unlike anything I have felt before.
I hope against hope as I slip off to sleep that our rapid descent into governmental chaos has hit a nadir - only to awaken to a new set of incoherent tweets or explosive headlines from top-notch reporters. And with that, we are falling once again. As I fall, we fall, even further, I pray again that our Constitutional government, the great gift of our Founding Fathers, will provide a safety net to catch us before everything we hold dear is no more. I believe that is the case, but the slowly rising level of uncertainty is not to be ignored.
I see recklessness where we need leadership... and I am deeply saddened.
I see politicians putting power and politics over principle... and I am incredulous.
I see lies treated as truths... and I am disgusted.
I see justice denied and likely obstructed.... and I am fearful.
I see norms flaunted... and I am angry.
I see global challenges going unaddressed... and I am worried.
I see the press under attack... and I am furious.
I see this, and more, so much more... and I am exhausted.
I find myself returning in my mind to dark days from the past, trying to remember how we as a nation felt, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, when Kennedy was shot, when Watergate took down a President, when terrorists rained terror from the skies. We somehow overcame. And I do believe that we shall overcome, someday. Perhaps, hopefully, someday soon.
But in the end, prayer will not be enough. Action, sustained action, will be required.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment