| |
|
By Mike Ciandella
 Since it began more than two weeks ago, CNN has provided a paltry 14 minutes and 11 seconds of coverage to the corruption trial of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez. In fact, the 24-hour cable news network has mentioned the trial only once since September 7.
For contrast, on just one day (September 18), CNN spent more than 45 minutes analyzing former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s 60-second appearance at the Emmy Awards ceremony the night before. And that total doesn’t include all of CNN’s coverage of the Emmys, just the portions specifically about Spicer.
This lack of coverage for Menendez’s trial is especially egregious since CNN anchor Poppy Harlow noted on September 6 that “this is a big deal…because this is the first bribery case involving a sitting U.S. Senator in over three decades.” Soon afterward, her co-anchor John Berman promised that “we will follow this case very, very closely.”
Despite this pledge, the trial hasn’t been mentioned on that show since.
The New Jersey Democrat is accused of taking bribes from a wealthy donor in exchange for favors, including helping to procure immigration visas for the donor’s girlfriends from Brazil, the Dominican Republic and Ukraine. According to the North Jersey paper The Record, “Menendez faces six counts of bribery, three counts of honest services fraud, one count of conspiracy, one count of interstate travel to carry out bribery, and one count of making false statements on his congressional financial disclosures to conceal the crimes.” Menendez was indicted in 2015, and the trial began on September 6, 2017.
Coincidentally, CNN video is being used as evidence in the trial. In the lone island of coverage he provided on Tuesday, CNN’s Jake Tapper played the relevant clip, in which Senator Menendez told political correspondent Dana Bash in 2013 that it took him several years to reimburse his friend for $60,000 in gifts because “it unfortunately fell through the cracks” (see transcript below).
More than two-thirds (9 minutes and 49 seconds) of CNN’s Menendez trial coverage appeared on just one show: The Lead With Jake Tapper. The Menendez trial has yet to be mentioned on CNN Tonight With Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper 360, Erin Burnett OutFront, The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer, Inside Politics, or Reliable Sources.
Broadcast network morning and evening news coverage of the trial has been even sparser than CNN’s. NBC’s Today, and all three broadcast evening news shows (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News) have yet to even mention the trial. So far, ABC’s Good Morning America has run just a single story on September 13 (1 minute, 48 seconds), while CBS This Morning has only provided a news brief on September 6 (22 seconds).
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS:
CNN’s The Lead With Jake Tapper, September 19, 2017
JAKE TAPPER: Speaking of votes, there is a Democratic vote, Senator Bob Menendez, right now who is in court. Jurors are deliberating over bribery charges against him, and those jurors are going to be shown new evidence tomorrow. That interview – an interview will be the evidence, that Senator Menendez did with CNN in 2013. He’s charged with accepting rides on private jets and upscale vacations, in exchange for political favors. Here is what Senator Menendez told our Dana Bash about retroactively paying for those flights. This is what he said in 2013.
DANA BASH: Senator, if you can explain why it took so long to pay back almost $60,000 in flights that you took with your friend?
SEN. MENENDEZ: Well, I was in a big travel schedule in 2010, chair of the DSCC plus my own campaign getting ready for a re-election cycle. And in the process of all of that, it unfortunately fell through the cracks that our processes didn't catch, moving forward and making sure we paid.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 At an event held by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on Wednesday, former President Barack Obama spoke out and smeared GOP lawmakers for trying to get rid of ObamaCare. “ It's certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents,” he told the crowd. And during their evening broadcasts, both CBS and NBC applauded Obama’s condemnation.
“Senate Republicans say their new health care plan may be their best chance for getting rid of Obamacare. That brought its namesake out of retirement today to defend it,” announced Anchor Anthony Mason during CBS Evening News.
CBS Correspondent Nancy Cordes noted that the Graham/Cassidy health care bill kept ObamaCare’s taxes in place but block granted the money to the states. But she parroted Obama’s assertions, saying that “former President Obama, in a rare public appearance, argued today that some states might allow insurers to once again charge more for pre-existing conditions.”
“Cassidy insists his plan does meet what he dubbed the Jimmy Kimmel test after the late-night host whose infant son has a heart defect. Kimmel himself slammed the plan last night,” Cordes added, noting Kimmel’s anti-GOP tirade from the night before.
During NBC Nightly News, reporter Kasie Hunt insinuated that the GOP’s primary reason for wanting to replace ObamaCare was for more cash in their coffers. “After Republicans failed to repeal ObamaCare in July, they're now under intense pressure from major donors to show they're actually doing something,” she asserted. “And Cassidy is spearheading the effort.”
Despite the fact that she reported how the bill requires states to account for how they will cover pre-existing conditions, Hunt leaned on liberal health care advocate Abbe Gluck to spread falsehoods about coverage. “That is the only bill we've seen so far that effectively lets state just dump that pre-existing condition requirement. It allows insurers to discriminate against you if you're sick,” Gluck declared.
Hunt also pointed out how Obama was “defending his signature legislation” today. And she sympathized with Kimmel’s attacks, claiming: “For late-night comic Jimmy Kimmel, the new push to repeal ObamaCare is deeply personal.”
It was just another opportunity for liberal networks to get underhanded shots in on GOP lawmakers trying to better the lives of Americans. None of them dared to mention ObamaCare’s failures nor Kimmel’s admission that he was willing politicizing his son’s medical condition.
Transcript below:
CBS Evening News
September 20, 2017
6:38:29 PM Eastern
ANTHONY MASON: Senate Republicans say their new health care plan may be their best chance for getting rid of Obamacare. That brought its namesake out of retirement today to defend it. Here's Nancy Cordes.
[Cuts to video]
NANCY CORDES: Republicans bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham sprinted from meeting to meeting today.
(…)
CORDES: The Graham/Cassidy bill would keep Obamacare's taxes in place but turn most of the revenues over to the states to come up with their own health care systems. Former President Obama, in a rare public appearance, argued today that some states might allow insurers to once again charge more for pre-existing conditions.
BARACK OBAMA: It's certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents.
CORDES: Cassidy insists his plan does meet what he dubbed the Jimmy Kimmel test after the late-night host whose infant son has a heart defect. Kimmel himself slammed the plan last night.
(…)
...
 NBC Nightly NewsSeptember 20, 2017 7:17:11 PM Eastern
LESTER HOLT: We're back with a new battle heating up in the health care wars. The latest attempt by Republicans to repeal ObamaCare. They plan to put their new bill to a vote next week and already it is highly controversial. NBC's Kasie hunt tonight on what the bill would do and a celebrity right in the middle of the fight.
[Cuts to video]
KASIE HUNT: For late-night comic Jimmy Kimmel, the new push to repeal ObamaCare is deeply personal.
(…)
HUNT: After Republicans failed to repeal ObamaCare in July, they're now under intense pressure from major donors to show they're actually doing something. And Cassidy is spearheading the effort. Last night Jimmy Kimmel said he's had enough.
(…)
HUNT: Cassidy's bill with Lindsey graham would eliminate the individual mandate to buy insurance, redistribute Medicaid expansion and Obamacare subsidy money to individual states to let them implement their own plans, but states could opt out of covering pre-existing conditions, though they would have to explain how they intend to keep those people covered. But experts warn –
ABBE GLUCK: That is the only bill we've seen so far that effectively lets state just dump that pre-existing condition requirement. It allows insurers to discriminate against you if you're sick.
HUNT: Former President Obama today defending his signature legislation.
BARACK OBAMA: It's certainly frustrating to have to mobilize every couple of months to keep our leaders from inflicting real human suffering on our constituents.
(…)
|
|
By Curtis Houck
CNN Politics editor at-large Chris Cillizza can always be counted on for head-scratching, scorching-hot takes, so it wasn’t a surprise when he offered up a sympathetic piece on Wednesday furthering the leftist cause that people should look to ABC’s late-night host Jimmy Kimmel for cues on health care policy.
His piece entitled “How the 'Jimmy Kimmel test' became the health care fight's measuring stick” started by nothing Kimmel’s “nearly seven-minute monologue” and “an impassioned call for Congress to reject the latest Republican attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, insisting the bill put forward by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy was worse than the previous measures the Senate has rejected.”
Taking no time to fact-check Kimmel, Cillizza ran a few Kimmel quotes before swooning: “It felt more like C-SPAN than late-night TV. And it's only the latest example of how Kimmel has, for many Americans, become the face and voice of the health care fight.”
Cillizza recapped the brief history of Kimmel and Cassidy prior to arriving at the latest battle:
And, now, as the health care repeal effort reaches its climax, Kimmel is back -- even while acknowledging the oddity of a late-night talk show host leading this fight.
“I never imagined I would get involved in something like this,” Kimmel said on Tuesdaynight. “This is not my area of expertise.”
(Worth noting: Kimmel has become much more political on a number of fronts of late. Last month, he spoke directly to Trump supporters in laying out the case for why their preferred candidate was not up to the job. And, earlier in September, he suggested that the main reason Trump wanted to eliminate DACA -- although it's not at all clear now that Trump does want to do that -- is because it was a program put in place by Barack Obama.)
Footnoting how George W. Bush and Trump were targeted by liberal late-night hosts while “Barack Obama was revered,” Cillizza moved on with astonishment that Kimmel has moved away from making people laugh but becoming a political lobbyist:
What's different about Kimmel is that he's not cracking jokes about health care. He's delivering emotional monologues -- with policy details! -- and urging legislative action (or trying to block legislative action). There's barely a laugh line in that seven-minute monologue from last night.
For conservatives and NewsBusters readers, that should come as no surprise.
Cillizza didn’t point out the contradiction of how the left and media implore people to follow x-percentage of scientists on climate change, but nudge people to follow a liberal comic on a massive issue like health care:
Why has that worked for this most unlikely of messengers? Because when Kimmel talks about health care, he's not talking as a celebrity. He's talking as the dad of a little kid who has health problems and who he's worried about. That's a tremendously relatable thing. Everyone who has children knows how emotionally wrenching it can be to watch them struggle through the flu, much less a more serious health problem. And the idea of losing the ability to care for them in the best possible way because of a bill passed in Congress makes that pain all the more real.
To be clear: Not everyone has been moved by Kimmel. There are plenty of Republicans who see him as nothing more than a liberal Hollywood type whose celebrity somehow convinces him that he is an authority on health care policy. And that he is using his son's illness to make a political point.
Cillizza closed with an excerpt from a Michelle Malkin piece (who’s also had a child faced with serious health scares), but then shot back with one last Kimmel quote:
Kimmel had an answer ready for those critics.
“I am politicizing my son's health problems because I have to,"” he said to roaring applause from the crowd.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
All three networks on Wednesday grilled United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley about Donald Trump’s “threatening” language to North Korea, wondering if the President’s speech was “appropriate.” But it was CBS This Morning co-host Gayle King who twisted the English language to worry about how the talk would impact the “President of North Korea.”
She fretted, “Ambassador, did you know the President was going to refer to Kim Jong-un, the President of North Korea, as rocket man and if so, do you think that kind of language and mocking is helpful? But first, did you know he was going to use that terminology?”
President of North Korea? The same dictator who brutally executes anyone who would defy him and kidnaps young girls to serve as sex slaves?
 Later in the show, guest co-host Bianna Golodryga forced a question about Trump’s speech into a segment with New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu's removal of Confederate memorials. She could barely hide her disdain:
I'm curious when you hear our President speak and some of the colorful language he chooses. Like yesterday even at the United Nations, Kim Jong-un the rocket man. What is your reaction to some of the language this president has used and is it helpful, do you think?
Over on NBC’s Today, Matt Lauer worried to Haley that Trump’s language might accidentally trigger nuclear war:
Kim Jong-un has tested three missiles, two of them flying over Japan, and tested a hydrogen bomb. Aren’t you afraid that more threats will simply push Kim into making a catastrophic mistake?
 On ABC’s Good Morning America, George Stephanopoulos hectored Haley, fearing that Trump had gone too far: “Do you think it’s appropriate to use a term like 'rocket man' to talk about a leader of another country who’s got nuclear weapons?"
[The bias on ABC, CBS and NBC was sponsored by Excedrin, Comcast and Macy's.]
A transcript of the questions from CBS This Morning is below:
CBS This Morning
9/20/17
7:15
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Ambassador, let me turn to North Korea and read you some of the comments the President made. He said “It's an outrage some nations would not only trade with such a regime but arm, supply and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict. Is the President talking about China and Russia? And if so, why did he not name them specifically?
...
 KING: Ambassador, did you know the President was going to refer to Kim Jong-un, the President of North Korea, as rocket man and if so, do you think that kind of language and mocking is helpful? But first, did you know he was going to use that terminology?
...
ROSE: Under what circumstances, specific circumstances, would the United States launch an attack against North Korea?
...
ROSE: The President has used words like “fire and fury” before. I mean, what do you believe is necessary to get his attention?
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 In the hours following President Trump’s speech to the United Nations Tuesday, the media frantically wondered if Trump wasn’t inviting nuclear war by condemning North Korea. Some networks like NBC, even sympathized with the American-hating regime of Iran while condemning our own president. MSNBC was no different, with anchor Brian Williams panicking on The Eleventh Hour September 20, that by Trump calling America “sovereign” he was sending a “dog whistle” to the UN that we didn’t need them anymore.
Williams was joined by a panel of liberal guests who shared his negative take on Trump’s speech. They included Jeremy Bash, former Chief of Staff for the D.O.D. and C.I.A. for Obama;
Anita Kumar, White House Correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers (formerly with the Washington Post) and MSNBC political analyst and White House Correspondent for The Wall Street Journal Eli Stokols.
Stokols started off the conversation by slamming Trump’s speech as “bombastic.” He claimed, “talking tough and trying to intimidate world leaders” has “never really worked as a foreign policy.”
Williams then brought in Kumar, to wonder if Trump’s “threats” to North Korea were a “message to his base:”
I want to quote Anita and how she summed it up in her lede for McClatchy Newspapers. ‘President Donald Trump delivered the message of the voter elected him.’ In other words, in front of that iconic emerald stone which he has criticized as cheap and offered to redo, standing there before 139-member nations, you saw him talking to his base?
Kumar explained she saw these words as Trump appealing to his populist base. She cited recent disillusionment from his base over some of his decisions, but said this was “exactly” why his voters elected him.
Stokols came in to say that “it doesn’t really matter what his voters want when it comes to how are you going to deal with North Korea, how are you going to deal with Syria, how are you going to deal with these problems with Iran or other problems around the world?”
Former Obama staffer Jeremy Bash agreed, slamming the speech as divisive:
The Commander-in-Chief is espousing this us vs. them mentality, really this neo-isolationism, drawing up the drawbridge and saying we’re going to fend ourselves. In a world which 97% of the population of the world lives outside our borders, we have to trade with them and work with them, we have to work in conjunction with them to solve the most critical problems of the world, and there he is at the United Nations saying we're going to go at it alone. It's really not a recipe for solving any of the problems that the United Nations can potentially solve.
Williams went back to Trump’s word choice, zeroing in on the word “sovereign.”
He asked Kumar, “Back to this use of this word sovereign and sovereignty, did you hear a buzzword or a dog whistle in his repeated use of that word?”
Kumar gushed it was “over the top” to use that word at an international conference:
KUMAR: Yeah, we knew he was going to talk a little bit about that because they had given us a little bit of preview, no words anything, so we were sort of expecting this theme, but it was just way more -- it was just over the top. You know, it caused me to go back through and count how many times he used that word sovereign or sovereignty 21 times.
WILLIAMS: Wow
KUMAR: It was definitely the word
WILLIAMS: So what does that mean?
Kumar went on to worry that by Trump calling our nation sovereign, he was “undermining the U.N.” and other international bodies by saying they “don’t matter:”
Everyone took rocket man but I took sovereignty. It just means what he was talking about, in the beginning. Which is, America first, we're going to go it alone and every other nation should be independent and free to do what they want and we should all gather together to fight what he called the wicked few I think he called it, the wicked ones. So, you know, that really undermines to me the U.N. which is where he was today, NATO, EU, places like that. International bodies he was really saying, don’t matter as much anymore.
Bash went on to claim that Trump’s “idea of nationalism” was really a “Russian ideology,” so by Trump not condemning Russia in his speech, he was playing into “Putin’s playbook.”
Williams ended the ridiculous conversation by asking Bash if Trump was doing “permanent damage” to America’s standing with the UN.
Bash warned that Trump was sending a “dangerous” and “concerning” message to the world.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
On Wednesday, syndicated daytime talk show host Ellen DeGeneres told NBC’s Megyn Kelly that she would refuse to have President Trump on her show because “There’s nothing I’m going to say to him that’s gonna change him and I don’t want to give him a platform because it just...validates him.”
“And I can’t have someone that I feel is not only dangerous for the country and for me personally as a gay woman, but to the world,” DeGeneres ranted. She decried Trump “dividing all of us” and reiterated: “I don’t want him on the show.” Her declaration was met with thunderous cheering and applause from her liberal audience.
The commentary from the self-avowed Hillary Clinton fan and ObamaCare booster came after Kelly recounted being a favorite media target of Trump’s throughout the 2016 campaign:
I was on the receiving end of his [Donald Trump’s] attentions, shall we say, for a long time. And I think in a way I was a canary in the coal mine because now we see what he was doing to me he’s doing to all the media. As much as we love to hate the media, I worry about them. It’s hard to be out there reporting on him fairly and get beaten up every day and every night. And it’s bad for the First Amendment, it’s bad for the country, even if you think the media is biased. For my own purposes, I feel happy to have removed myself from that life.
DeGeneres then wondered: “But now you have a new show and would you have him on your show?” Kelly replied: “Definitely. I mean, I would not say no to the sitting President of the United States.”
The biased segment was brought to viewers by Oxi-Clean, Werther’s Original, and Bounty.
Here is a transcript of the September 20 exchange:
3:20 PM ET
(...)
MEGYN KELLY: I don’t know, Ellen, you know, it’s been hard. I was on the receiving end of his [Donald Trump’s] attentions, shall we say, for a long time.
ELLEN DEGENERES: Right.
KELLY: And I think in a way I was a canary in the coal mine because now we see what he was doing to me he’s doing to all the media. As much as we love to hate the media, I worry about them.
DEGENERES: Right.
KELLY: It’s hard to be out there reporting on him fairly and get beaten up every day and every night.
DEGENERES: Yeah.
KELLY: And it’s bad for the First Amendment, it’s bad for the country, even if you think the media is biased. For my own purposes, I feel happy to have removed myself from that life.
 DEGENERES: But now you have a new show and would you have him on your show?
KELLY: Definitely. I mean, I would not say no to the sitting President of the United States.
DEGENERES: Really?
KELLY: Absolutely not. Would you?
DEGENERES: Yeah.
[APPLAUSE]
KELLY: You would?!
DEGENERES: Yeah.
[CHEERS]
DEGENERES: I would not have him on the show. I mean look – now I’m going to get bad tweets like. But I just – you know, he is who he is and he has enough attention and he has his Twitter account and he has ways to get his message across. There’s nothing I’m going to say to him that’s gonna change him and I don’t want to give him a platform because it just – it validates him. And for me to have someone on the show, I really – I have to – I have to at least admire them in some way. And I can’t have someone that I feel is not only dangerous for the country and for me personally as a gay woman, but to the world. He is dividing all of us. And I think – I don’t want to represent – I just – I don’t want him on the show.
[CHEERS & APPLAUSE]
(...)
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 During a wild segment of MSNBC Live on Wednesday morning, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson railed against climate change skeptics. He questioned their education, intelligence, and claimed they were participating in “ the unraveling of an informed democracy.” And it was all said to the glee of MSNBC co-hosts Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle.
“These are shots across our bow,” Tyson claimed about the recent hurricanes. “And to have people still saying I choose not to follow what the consensus of observations and experiments give us,” he huffed in complete disbelief.
He then chastised the skeptics, claiming they were irresponsible and willfully putting people’s lives at risk. “Well, so, first, anyone who wants to base policy on what might be research papers that are not in the consensus of what other observations have shown, that is risky. That is -- no, it's irresponsible,” he angrily proclaimed.
“To say here is one research paper, that's the truth because it fulfills my political, cultural, religious, economic philosophies,” he spat. “people cherry-picking science in the fringes of what is otherwise the emerging consensus of observation and experiment. So, that’s disturbing to me.”
What’s really disturbing was that a scientist (Tyson) would cherry-pick the scientific explanations he would listen to, because their conclusions didn’t fulfill his political, cultural, religious, economic philosophies.
In fact, there were plenty of climate scientists that believed either that it’s too soon to tell if climate change was the cause or that climate change didn’t play a role at all. According to environment analyst Nicolas Loris:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent scientific assessment that "(n)o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes ... have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin," and that there are "no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency."
Loris also noted that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) believed “it is premature to conclude that human activities” played a role in causing the hurricanes this season. NBC’s own Al Roker once explained that since 2017 was a non-El Nino year there was less wind shear at higher altitudes, thus allowing the storms to get stronger.
All of that was science Tyson denied was real. Which was ultimately par for the course for Tyson considering he’s known for making vastly inaccurate statements and using false quotes. He recently appeared on CNN where he claimed Abraham Lincoln was alive in 1963. The 16th U.S. president was assassinated in 1865.
Tyson’s conclusion apparently triggered Ruhel because she immediately began to slam those who disagree with her guest. “It goes beyond denying science, it’s about good long-term decision making. But people aren’t making good long-term decisions whether you’re talking about business or science,” she exclaimed. “But people aren’t necessarily adding thoughtfulness to their calculation. Because isn’t what shareholders are looking for and it’s not what voters look for.”
“That is the unraveling of an informed democracy,” Tyson declared, to Ruhel’s excitement.
Clearly, that “analysis” by Tyson was just political opportunism. He was exploiting a tragedy to push climate change when other believers in the theory say they aren’t sure yet.
Transcript below:
MSNBC Live
September 20, 2017
11:38:46 AM Eastern
(…)
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: This could be just an unlucky year to have so many intense storms. By the way, how many people are reminded that tropical depressions are named alphabetically? Right?
[Crosstalk]
We’re up to “M” and often they don’t make it up to hurricane status. So, you see hurricanes in sequence, they’re not necessarily consecutive in the alphabet.
(…)
TYSON: That could just be unlucky. However, consider that when you warm the planet the capacity of the air to retain moisture goes up.
STEPHANIE RUHLE: You’re referencing climate change.
TYSON: Yes. Generally, when we think of weather, we don't think of clear blue skies. We think of what water is doing in the atmosphere. Is it snow, sleet, hail, rain, wind driven. When we think of weather, that's what we think of.
(…)
And so these are shots across our bow. And to have people still saying I choose not to follow what the consensus of observations and experiments give us.
 (…)
TYSON: Well, so, first, anyone who wants to base policy on what might be research papers that are not in the consensus of what other observations have shown, that is risky. That is -- no, it's irresponsible. To say here is one research paper, that's the truth because it fulfills my political, cultural, religious, economic philosophies.
ALI VELSHI: How do you reconcile this? Why are we having this debate? It is not a global phenomenon, by the way. It’s a uniquely American—some people in the U.K.—were we got the strength of argument that suggests that science should not be trusted.
RUHLE: And I cannot imagine that someone who’s studying astrophysics would have considered religion or philosophy would be a roadblock to research.
TYSON: Or economics or whatever it is to people cherry-picking science in the fringes of what is otherwise the emerging consensus of observation and experiment. So, that’s disturbing to me.
(…)
RUHLE: But to both of you. It goes beyond denying science, it’s about good long-term decision making.
[Crosstalk]
But people aren’t making good long-term decisions whether you’re talking about business or science.
(…)
RUHLE: But people aren’t necessarily adding thoughtfulness to their calculation. Because isn’t what shareholders are looking for and it’s not what voters look for.
TYSON: That is the unraveling of an informed democracy.
RUHLE: Say that one more time!
(…)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment