| |
|
By Scott Whitlock
Before taking a question from ABC journalist Jon Karl on Friday, Donald Trump made sure to lambaste the “killer networks” and their “fake news.” He also demanded a “fair” question from the journalist. Appearing with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis, Trump mused, “Who would like to ask? Should I take one of the killer networks that treat me so badly as fake news?”
Talking to Karl, he baited, “Should I do that? Go ahead, Jon. Be fair, Jon.” The journalist replied, “Always fair, Mr. President.” On Twitter, CNN journalist Brian Stelter objected to Trump’s usage of the phrase “killer networks.”
The two then went back and forth on James Comey:
JON KARL: Always fair. Mr. President, I want to get back to James Comey's testimony. You suggested he didn't tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn -- you said you hoped the Flynn investigation -- he could let go—
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn't say that.
 The two continued:
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of —
TRUMP: 100 percent. I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that. Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath. Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. I didn't say that and I didn't say the other.
Trump has previously battled with journalists in press conferences, complaining about their “level of dishonesty” that’s “out of control.”
A transcript of the exchange:
 Press conference 6/9/17 3:13
DONALD TRUMP: Who would like to ask? Should I take one of the killer networks that treat me so badly as fake news? Should I do that? Go ahead, Jon. Be fair, Jon.
JON KARL: Absolutely.
TRUMP: Remember how fair you used to be before I ran? Such a nice man.
JON KARL: Always fair. Mr. President, I want to get back to James Comey's testimony. You suggested he didn't tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn -- you said you hoped the Flynn investigation -- he could let go—
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn't say that. I will tell you, I didn't say that.
KARL: And did he ask you to pledge --
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it according to everybody that I read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of —
TRUMP: 100 percent. I hardly know the man. I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that. Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath. Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn't make sense. I didn't say that and I didn't say the other.
KARL: So if Robert Mueller wanted to speak with you --
TRUMP: I'd be happy to tell you what I just told you.
KARL: And you seem to hint that there are recordings of those conversations.
TRUMP: I’m not hinting anything. I'll tell you about it over a very short period of time. I'm not hinting at anything. Okay. Do you have a question here?
KARL: When will you tell us about the recordings?
TRUMP: Over a very short period of time.
REPORTERS SHOUTING: Are there tapes, sir?
TRUMP: Oh,you're going to be very disappointed when you hear the answer. Don't worry. John, do you have a question for the president?
KARL: Yes. Thank you. President Iohannis, you're no stranger to Russian aggression. Vladimir Putin recently suggested that Romania could be in Russia's crosshairs. How concerned should the world be about Russia aggression in your region and how concerned should we be here in the United States be about what Russia tried to do in our election, sir?
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 In one of the last segments on Sunday’sReliable Sources, CNN host Brian Stelter spent nearly four and half minutes whining about the public, specifically Trump supporters, who don’t believe the news media. “ If you don't believe the ‘media,’ then you probably don't believe that the Trump administration has had a dysfunctional few months,” he chided at the start of the segment. “ If you don't believe the ‘media,’ you might not believe Russia's meddling in last year's election is a very big deal.”
Stelter admitted that the distrust in media started long before President Trump, but he rested its current state at Trump’s feet. “And the President feeds that inherent distrust with tweets like this. Here he is this morning saying: ‘The fake news MSM doesn’t report the great economic news since Election Day,’” he read from a cheery picked tweet. He then pointed to a poll to show “how this anti-media rhetoric is having a real effect:”
A new Quinnipiac poll shows that more than half the country, 52 percent, believes Trump has changed attitudes towards the news media for the worse. 22 percent say he’s changed attitudes for the better. And 20 percent say he hasn't had an impact.
He then brought on political analyst Jeff Greenfield to confer, asking him: “How corrosive has this antimedia campaign been, do you think?”
Greenfield thought it was “the singular political success” Trump had had since being elected president of the United States. “I think that has served that relentless campaign on Twitter and in his comments, fake news, fake news, fake news has been to convince that group of people that there is no such thing as a set of facts independent of your politics,” he complained. “And that has certainly served to continue and accelerate what you've talked about as a long process of declining trust in news.”
Stelter described any and all discussion of the press’s dishonesty as “venom” and called it “the story of the decade in media.” And he didn’t know how to solve the problem of an aware public. “It's kind of like Sisyphus. You got to roll that stone up the hill,” Greenfield explained, saying that eventually, people might come around.
For them, the problem of people mistrusting the media stemmed solely from the “anti-media rhetoric,” and it never seemed to occur to them that the media itself was the problem.
According to a Media Research Center/YouGov poll conducted after the 2016 election, “7 in 10 (69%) voters do not believe the news media are honest and truthful.” And in addition, 78 percent thought the coverage was bias in some way. An observer only needs to look at Stelter’s show to see where they get that understanding from.
Earlier in the program, Stelter and his stacked panel of liberal journalists defended The New York Times’ use of faulty anonymous sources. Their sources helped produce stories that were found to be “dead wrong” after the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey, stories CNN helped to promote. They also defended MSNBC’s Brian Williams, who claimed to have a source that said Trump didn’t know the U.S. had troops staged in Qatar. And just a few hours before Reliable Sources went live, CNN’s John King asserted that Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ private testimony to the Senate was “obstruction of Justice.”
The CNN host conducts his show and himself in a manner that leaves questions about his seriousness in wanting to correct the public’s view of the press. Back in late March, Stelter scolded Fox News for reporting on the Rockville Rape, with his primary complaint being that it helped Trump. And after the rape charges were dropped to child pornography charges, he acted as though all charges were dropped and scolded Fox again for “whispering” the update. Stelter often insinuated Trump was an authoritarian dictator and had implored other journalists to do that same. He even blamed the firebombing of a North Carolina GOP headquarters on then candidate Trump’s rhetoric.
Stelter acts as though the media is a perfect medium that exists in a vacuum and the only negative influence on it is Trump. He has little interest in fixing how the media rushes to publish stories to smear the administration, such as when they reported Trump removed the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. or when they freaked out over him eating a steak well-done and with ketchup. Both are forms of Fake News. It’s the media’s actions, not Trump’s words that drive the public’s distrust.
Transcript below:
CNN
Reliable Sources
June 11, 2017
11:49:35 AM Eastern
BRIAN STELTER: Welcome back to Reliable Sources. If you don't believe the “media,” then you probably don't believe that the Trump administration has had a dysfunctional few months. If you don't believe the “media,” you might not believe Russia's meddling in last year's election is a very big deal. Trust in the media has been low for years and getting lower. And the President feeds that inherent distrust with tweets like this. Here he is this morning saying: “The fake news MSM doesn’t report the great economic news since Election Day. Obviously, the press does report on job creation, stock market records, et cetera. Their entire business channels. But what I think he means is he wants the press to report it more often, more positively.
In any case, we can see how this anti-media rhetoric is having a real effect. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that more than half the country, 52 percent, believes Trump has changed attitudes towards the news media for the worse. 22 percent say he’s changed attitudes for the better. And 20 percent say he hasn't had an impact.
Back with me for final thoughts, Jeff Greenfield, award-winning journalist and political analyst. Jeff, in six months—or almost six months into this presidency, how corrosive has this antimedia campaign been, do you think?
JEFF GREENFIELD: Well, I think the singular political success of President Trump, going back to his campaign, is that he has convinced the core of his supporters that anything you hear critical of the President is by definition fake. And so I think that has served that relentless campaign on Twitter and in his comments, fake news, fake news, fake news has been to convince that group of people that there is no such thing as a set of facts independent of your politics. If you are criticizing Donald Trump, if you're pointing out inconsistencies or outright falsehoods, by definition you are lying. And that has certainly served to continue and accelerate what you've talked about as a long process of declining trust in news.
And by the way, it's not confined to the political right. A lot of people on the left think that the press is, you know, the handmaiden of corporate America, it was unfair to Bernie Sanders. But in terms of the President, that is a key to the fact that even though he’s unpopular on a national level, very low approval numbers, something like 96 percent of his voters told a survey they’d still vote for him again.
And that I think is not an accident. This is not independent of a very shrewdly calculated political judgment. If I can convince my supporters not to believe anything they hear about me that's critical, I'm in relatively good shape.
STELTER: To me, this is the story of the year. It might be the story of the decade in media, this issue of mistrust and the venom that's encouraging folks to trust even less and less and less. And I always come back to the same question, what do we do about it?
GREENFIELD: There is nothing to be done about it other than to report the news as fairly and you can. Here’s one of the problems, though. So let’s say you're a journalist with no particular political bias, they do exist, and you and discover the President has been dissembling, let's use the polite words, on any number of issues. And so, now your judgment is that the President is not trustworthy. That judgment—If that judgment doesn't come from your political ideology but from your experience covering Trump, and people you’re reporting to—at least the Trump's supporters say: “No, no, no, we don't believe that, you're just another left winger.” It's kind of like Sisyphus. You got to roll that stone up the hill.
And I think eventually if this pattern continues, you may well see people -- you've seen a lot of people who are conservatives, who have broken sharply with Trump on the grounds of trustworthiness. But among that core, you know, there's nothing you can do. All you can do is say: “Here are the facts, here is what I've found.” And if people want to dismiss it as saying, fake news, elite, brie-eating, Chablis-swilling easterners, you have no choice but to keep at it. That’s the fate of a journalist.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
What better way for CBS This Morning to spin James Comey’s appearance in front of Congress on Thursday then to bring on Watergate journalist Bob Woodward? The veteran reporter compared Comey to his iconic source, Deep Throat.
Speaking of the revelation that the ex-FBI Director leaked information, Woodward managed to offer a hyperbolic comparison and, at the same time, remind people of his own legacy: “He's like our old source Deep Throat, Mark Felt, who was number two in the FBI. Felt would meet in an underground garage, lurking in the shadows.”
Gayle King wondered, “Was Comey's credibility damaged, do you think, Bob, when he revealed he leaked information to a friend in the hopes that it would lead to a special prosecutor?”
Unsurprisingly, Woodward loves leaks. He replied, “I think it actually was enhanced.... Yeah. Because he was honest about it.”
In a nod towards objectivity, the journalist hit Comey on not publicly saying Trump wasn't under investigation:
I think he should have. His argument is, well if Trump came under investigation, we'd have to fix that. We'd have to correct that. But there is a way. If you look at for four months Trump was essentially begging, “Tell them I'm not under investigation.”
A transcript is below:
CBS This Morning
6/9/17
7:10:42 to 7:16:56
CHARLIE ROSE: With us now is Bob Woodward, an associate editor at the Washington Post. He is no stranger to blockbuster congressional hearings. He is one of the reporters that broke the Watergate story that eventually led to President Nixon’s resignation. Bob, welcome.
 BOB WOODWARD: Thank you.
ROSE: So, we have testimony yesterday in which James Comey calls the President a liar. Then, the President tweets this morning that James Comey a liar. This began as a probe into whether Russia was colluding with the trump transition team. Where are we on the big story?
WOODWARD: That is the question. The big story is about what Russia did. That's what's got to be investigated and what's missing here at this point is a clear crime. What Russia did in the election last year, it was a classic espionage operation. We — Our CIA used to do this decades ago. And so you've got to find out who did that? Was somebody in the United States in the Trump campaign or trump himself somehow involved. That's a big task. I think we now have about five to ten percent —
ROSE: Five percent?
 WOODWARD: — of the answers to the questions we need. And there’s so many and so many have to do with what happened with Russia.
NORAH O’DONNELL: That's exactly what the FBI was trying to do and tasked with. And then we have the man who's been in charge of this independent agency saying before the world, “It's my judgment I was fired because of the Russia investigation by the President of the United States.”
WOODWARD: I think that's true, and I think you look at the chronology and the evidence at the same time. You know, what was Trump thinking? What was he doing? And Comey gives a window into this. Trump was obsessed with getting a public declaration that he, Trump, was not under investigation. And Comey told him that three times and then never would say it publicly.
GAYLE KING: Do you think he should have said it publicly?
WOODWARD: I think he should have. His argument is, well if Trump came under investigation, we'd have to fix that. We'd have to correct that. But there is a way. If you look at for four months Trump was essentially begging, “Tell them I'm not under investigation.”
KING: Was Comey's credibility damaged, do you think, Bob, when he revealed he leaked information to a friend in the hopes that it would lead to a special prosecutor? Which it did.
WOODWARD: I think it actually was enhanced.
KING: Really?
WOODWARD: Yeah. Because he was honest about it.
KING: He’s like our old source Deep Throat, Mark Felt, who was number two in the FBI. Felt would meet in an underground garage, lurking in the shadows.
ROSE: With you?
WOODWARD: With me. Yes. And Comey has come out and said, “Look, I wanted to get this out. I think we needed a special counsel to investigate that.” That’s reasonable.
ROSE: Are there other comparisons ws with Watergate? Because here we have, with John Dean, we had somebody who is on the inside. James Comey is not on the inside of the Trump administration.
WOODWARD: There is dramatic difference. Comey not John Dean. Comey is a witness about what trump allegedly did. Dean was so powerful 45 years ago as a witness because he said, “look, I was the president's lawyer in the white house and what I did was corrupt. We led the obstruction of justice. The President was in charge of this. And I was responding that way.”
KING: Was there any positive takeaway for team trump yesterday in your opinion?
WOODWARD: Well, just the argument that, “Hey, look, why didn't they tell the world that Trump was not under investigation.” And if you get into the chronology of this, there are two points where Comey waits two weeks before kind of responding to what clearly to what clearly was president Trump's number one demand.
ROSE: You get the impression, though, that the Trump team is a bit relieved by this because they expected perhaps he had things to say that he had not said before that might have been even more damaging.
WOODWARD: That’s possible But it’s very damaging when Comey said, “Look, at one meeting the President said let the Flynn investigation go.” Trump, a lot of people are saying, “Trump is new to this, he's not lawyer.” If you check the record, and I have, Trump's been involved in more lawsuits than just about anyone and he knows you have to get legal advice and not get involved in this business of telling the FBI director drop an investigation. That's off the rails and way out of bounds.
O’DONNELL: We sat here together all day yesterday and remarked about how many times the FBI director mentioned tapes. Multiple occasions was the reason he actually released the memos to his friend and became part of the papers. He said, “Lordy, I hope there's tapes.” Do you think there's tapes?
WOODWARD: You know — It's always the best evidence. If there had not been tapes in the Nixon case, he would have stayed in office, I'm sure. Say you're Mueller, the special investigator counsel in this. What do you want? You want a defector from Russian intelligence to come to the United States and “I will tell you how we ran this operation.” I mean all of — everyone in the intelligence community has been very clear and very powerful in saying there is evidence that everyone agrees, establishes that Russia did this. Now, was there money involved? Who was involved? They said Putin directed it. Are there people in this country? That’s why I say we still have 90 or 95 of the work to do.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 When Washington, DC woke up Sundaymorning, politicos were greeted with the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was going to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. It would be a change of plans since Sessions was scheduled for a public hearing in front of the Senate Budget Committee, where he was expected to be pelted with Russia questions. It’s the Intelligence Committee that is handling the Senate’s Russia investigation, but according to CNN’s John King on Inside Politics, a private hearing could be an “obstruction of justice.”
“But as we speak this Sunday morning, he was scheduled to testify publicly before budget committees where he would be asked these questions,” King asked to his stacked panel of liberal journalists. “Do we know if he now say: “I'm not going to do that, I'm sending my deputy. I'll go to the Senate Intelligence Committee,” but will he do that in public or private?”
CNN’s Senior Congressional Reporter Manu Raju stated that they didn’t know if it would be private, and just “assumed” it would be. “Can the Republicans allow that to happen,” King wondered. And with a shrug of his shoulders, Raju responded with: “They can. They have the power to.”
King continued to have a problem with the notion that the committee conducting the investigation should be the one to question Sessions. “But my question is what about the Republican brand, can they stand for this,” he demanded to know, before suggesting the change was to cover up a more nefarious plot. “He was scheduled to testify publically-- I'll leave it to the lawyers to get into obstruction of justice-- but it's certainly an obstruction of accountability.”
“It’s an obstruction of the truth, if the Attorney General was scheduled to testify publically and then it’s allowed to somehow to pull that off the table and get it to private after serious questions were raised about the top law enforcement official in the United States' conduct,” King continued to rant. He was acting as though testimony in a private hearing wouldn’t be admissible in a proper court or be used to hold people accountable.
The New York Times’ Carl Hulse had his own hypothesis for why Sessions would choose to go before the Intelligence Committee instead of the BUDGET COMMITTEE to talk about Russia. “I think he—Sessions is making a calculation there that may be the intel committee is a little more friendly venue for him,” he explained to King. “He does have John Cornyn, Jim Risch, Tom Cotton, people he’s worked really closely with.”
Perhaps it’s not the possible actions of an actual court of law that King cares about, but instead, one the media could have some form of sway over. “Up next, who do you trust? Prosecutors have one standard but it's a very different standard in the court of public opinion, and that's a giant problem for the President,” he stated as he was going to a commercial break.
Is it true that Sessions felt like he would get a fairer shake in the Intelligence Committee? Possibly. Could it be because the Intelligence Committee is better suited to the levy questions about Russia against him? Again, possibly. The understanding that the Intelligence Committee is the correct venue for those questions seemed to have never crossed their minds.
The idea that it’s somehow an “obstruction of justice,” “of accountability,” or “of truth” is a demonstration of just how much King, the rest of the panel, and the media, in general, are craving a conviction. And if they can’t get it in an actual court of law, they’ll settle for the court of public opinion.
Transcript below:
CNN
Inside Politics
June 11, 2017
8:03:48 AM Eastern
JOHN KING: Let me start with the question of Jeff Sessions. He is absolutely central to this. On the one hand here is the administration's chance to rebut Comey with a powerful witness. But as we speak this Sunday morning, he was scheduled to testify publicly before budget committees where he would be asked these questions. Do we know if he now say: “I'm not going to do that, I'm sending my deputy. I'll go to the Senate Intelligence Committee,” but will he do that in public or private?
MANU RAJU: We don't know that yet. We assume we were talking earlier, but we think he's probably not going to do this in public.
KING: Can the Republicans allow that to happen?
RAJU: They can. They have the power to. Will they accept it? We heard Senator Richard Burr, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who is frustrated with the lack of responsiveness from other witnesses before the Comey testimony will he want to hear from Jeff Sessions.
(…)
8:05:49 AM Eastern
KING: My question-- I'll come back to this in a minute, cause I want to get back to the President. But my question is what about the Republican brand, can they stand for this? He was scheduled to testify publically-- I'll leave it to the lawyers to get into obstruction of justice-- but it's certainly an obstruction of accountability. It’s an obstruction of the truth, if the Attorney General was scheduled to testify publically and then it’s allowed to somehow to pull that off the table and get it to private after serious questions were raised about the top law enforcement official in the United States' conduct. That would be a copout at a minimum.
CARL HULSE: I think he—Sessions is making a calculation there that may be the intel committee is a little more friendly venue for him. He does have John Cornyn, Jim Risch, Tom Cotton, people he’s worked really closely with.
(…)
8:25:48 AM Eastern
KING: Up next, who do you trust? Prosecutors have one standard but it's a very different standard in the court of public opinion, and that's a giant problem for the president.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Conservative talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh dedicated time on his Friday program to mocking a deranged Huffington Post column by Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor Marjorie Cohn that President Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate deal “constitutes an impeachable offense” and crime against humanity.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Limbaugh laughed at Cohn’s “clinical insanity”:
“Doesn’t Trump know he’s supposed to be sulking in the White House and thinking about quitting? Doesn’t Trump know that it’s over? Doesn’t Trump know? Doesn’t Trump realize we are destroying him? When is he gonna start acting like we are succeeding?” They’re going nuts — and that doesn’t even get halfway there. This is clinical insanity. Maybe I need… Today at the Huffing and Puffington Post there is a… What is this babe a professor of? She’s a law professor. Her name’s Marjorie or Marietta or something Cohn. C-O-H-N.
“These people have escaped all rationality and reason, and they are being governed — and I’m talking about the vast majority of people on the left,” Limbaugh added.
Cohn’s article was quite the rant, wasting our time with 415 words wallowing in the U.S.’s departure from Paris before her main argument (with supposed support from Alexander Hamilton):
Trump’s withdrawal from the climate agreement constitutes an impeachable offense.
The Constitution provides for impeachment of the president when he commits “High Crimes” and misdemeanors. They include, but are not limited to, conduct punishable by the criminal law.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 65 that offenses are impeachable if they “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
“They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
Expressing fear like a true liberal snowflake, Cohn fretted that voters are supposed to “trust the president to act in their best interests and protect them from harm,” but Trump’s decision on global warming has “violat[ed] the trust that ‘We the People’ have placed in him.”
How, you ask, does Cohn arrive at that conclusions? By making predictions that may or may not happen:
If the climate continues to change at a rapid rate, society itself will be injured. As the glaciers melt and the oceans swell, the land will recede. Crops will die. Mosquitos will increasingly carry diseases. The Earth will be hit with massive floods, devastating heat waves and drought. Polar bears will become extinct. People will lose their lands, their homes and their lives. Indeed, life as we know it will come to an end.
(....)
Moreover, by withdrawing the United States from the climate accord, Trump has committed a crime against humanity, which also constitutes a High Crime.
Cohn earlier invoked the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, but the far-left Huffington Post contributor later went full-fledged globalist, touted the definition of crimes against humanity from the International Crime Court (ICC).
If you thought this piece couldn’t get any more ridiculous, you’re sadly mistaken! Cohn provided this quote from lefty loon Tom Engelhardt, who dubbed being against climate change as “the ultimate ‘crime against humanity’” and thus “terracide.”
Mercifully, she concluded:
It takes 51 percent of the House of Representatives to impeach the president. Republicans control a majority of the seats in the House. But imperiling the planet should not be a partisan issue.
The fact that virtually every other country in the world, as well as U.S. states and cities, corporations and activists worldwide are taking steps on their own to slow the changing climate does not absolve Trump from his crime.
It is incumbent upon the House of Representatives to vote for the impeachment of Trump.
Meanwhile, we must, and will, continue to build the global climate justice movement.
|
|
By Alex Xenos
 On Friday's CNN New Day, co-host Chris Cuomo attacked Republicans for being justifiably disturbed by James Comey's revelation on Thursday that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch attempted to interfere in the FBI investigation into Hillary's Clinton's e-mails during the 2016 campaign: "..they say it is really about President Obama's attorney general Loretta Lynch and why she tried to, in their terms, obstruct that investigation. That was their big take away from yesterday and that tells you everything about the political tribalism at play right now."
The disappointed morning show host ranted:
When [Senator Richard] Burr said, "Hey, I want to talk to you about Loretta Lynch and her wanting to call it an investigation, a matter," and the GOP in chorus like Shakespeare all saying, "Ooh, that could be obstruction." And Paul Ryan saying, "Well the president, yeah he ordered people out of the room, but he is new to this." Didn't he [Trump] get what he needed most of all? In a political process, his party is behind him. The facts be damned.
Fellow CNN anchor John King admitted a day earlier that the media was not going to cover the Loretta Lynch revelation.
Although Cuomo conceded that Democrats were reaching in their discussions of impeachment, he virtually never calls out Democrats for their political charades. New Day ignored Senator Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) antics when she shamefully berated Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a non-political and well respected official. CNN actually published a story spinning the whole incident in favor of Harris, exposing themselves as pleaders for the Democratic Party.
Later on Friday's show, clearly angry that the GOP was still moving forward with its legislative agenda despite the Russia investigation, Cuomo hit Republicans with a quick attack in passing: “The nice little vote yesterday pulling back the protections to kinda keep people safe from crazy financial practices.” This was in reference to House Republicans repealing parts of the disastrous Dodd-Frank legislation.
Below is the relevant parts of the June 9 transcript:
6:01 AM
CHRIS CUOMO: Meantime, Republicans are lining up behind the president, arguing he is new to the job and that explains everything he said to James Comey. And they say it is really about President Obama's attorney general Loretta lynch and why she tried to in their terms, obstruct that investigation. That was their big take away from yesterday and that tells you everything about the political tribalism at play right now.
(...)
6:21 AM
CUOMO: And David Gregory, and I open this to any one of you if you want to push back on it. But couldn't you argue that the president got what he needed most out of yesterday? While I'm not differing with any of your analysis in terms of the import of yesterday and what it could mean, when Burr said, "Hey I want to talk to you about Loretta Lynch and her wanting to call it an investigation, a matter," and the GOP in chorus like Shakespeare all saying, "Ooh that could be obstruction." And Paul Ryan saying, "Well the president, yeah he ordered people out of the room, but he is new to this." Didn't he get what he needed most of all? In a political process, his party is behind him. The facts be damned.
(...)
7:12 AM
CAMEROTA: David, is that being on board with President Trump or is that agenda, agenda, agenda. We want ObamaCare repealed. That's what we promised. We want tax reform and lower taxes.
CUOMO: The nice little vote yesterday pulling back the protections to kinda keep people safe from crazy financial practices.
CAMEROTA: Yes.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment