| |
|
By Geoffrey Dickens
 On Tuesday, The Hill reported new revelations in the scandal surrounding Russia’s obtaining control of American uranium and its payments to The Clinton Foundation. It’s a scandal that the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening shows have gone out of their way to shun, spending only 3 minutes and 1 second on the story in over two years.
On October 17 The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann reported that “Before the Obama administration had approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”
Additionally, The Hill reported that the FBI had “obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.”
Back in 2015, author Peter Schweizer, in his book Clinton Cash, broke the story that a Canadian uranium company, seeking approval of a sale to the Russian government from then Secretary of State Clinton’s State Department, had donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. Since April 23, 2015 the NBC Nightly News has spent a grand total of 92 seconds on the Uranium-Russia deal. The CBS Evening News devoted a total of 61 seconds on the Schweizer revelations, followed by ABC World News Tonight at just a mere 28 seconds of coverage.
With these new revelations, the question has to be asked, what will it take for the Big Three networks to fully cover this scandal?
The following is an excerpt from the October 17 The Hill.com story “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow”
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
The latest video from James O’Keefe captures a New York Times editor secretly trashing the “idiot” Donald Trump and the “fucking horrible” Mike Pence. In undercover footage released by Project Veritas on Tuesday, NYT homepage editor Des Shoe conceded, “The New York Times is not...I mean, it's widely understood to be liberal-leaning. But, American newspapers are not supposed to claim a bias, they're supposed to be objective.”
She added, “Our main stories are supposed to be objective. It's very difficult in this day and age to do that.” Showing the typical elitist snobbery of the Times, Shoe spewed:
"If you impeach him, then Pence becomes President, Mike Pence, who's f***ing horrible...I think maybe, possibly worse than Trump.
"He's extremely, extremely religious. He [Pence] at one point backed a bill that hinted at conversion therapy for gay people...Which is like electrocution, stuff like that."
Of Trump, she seethed, “I feel like Trump is...is just a...is sort of an idiot in a lot of ways. Just an oblivious idiot.”
In a previous undercover video by O’Keefe, a NYT online editor bragged about slanting the news against Trump.
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 Monday evening on the final hour of CNN Tonight, host Don Lemon psychoanalyzed President Trump’s flailing answer to a reporter earlier that day about past presidents record of contacting fallen soldiers’ families. Lemon claimed Trump was “obsessed” with Obama because he could never be as “classy” “smart” or “kind” as our former president, while guest analysts Douglas Brinkley and Charles Blow repeatedly claimed Trump was racist and that was why he was “obsessed” with Obama.
That hyper-partisan analysis was in response to Monday’s press briefing, where Trump came out to the Rose Garden to answer reporters’ questions, unannounced. When asked by a reporter “why” he had not said anything about the four recently killed U.S. soldiers in Niger, Trump gave a lengthy fumbling answer, explaining he had written the families’ letters and would call them soon, when appropriate. But after this, he compared his response to past presidents, and this is the part the media seized on:
So, the traditional way — if you look at President Obama and other Presidents, most of them didn't make calls, a lot of them didn't make calls. I like to call when it's appropriate, when I think I'm able to do it. They have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Trump’s defensive answer gave the media plenty of fodder in the hours following the briefing, as they couldn’t stop talking about the gaffe. CNN took it a step further, saying the brief moment was a sign that Trump was “obsessed” with Obama, (even adding that to their on-screen chyron.)
Anchor Don Lemon asked one of his guests for the segment, historian Douglas Brinkley, was Trump “just trying to undo former President Obama's legacy?” That gave Brinkley, who has gushed about Obama as a “scandal-free president” who was “almost unimpeachable,” the perfect setup to invoke racism:
DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: Yes because Donald Trump doesn’t have much of a legislative accomplishment this year. He has one note that’s just, beat on Barack Obama. He feels that somehow makes him feel big. It's been stunning to see what he said. I mean it started with the birther movement with Donald Trump and the the fact he's claiming that he was wiretapped by Barack Obama. And now Trump is making up things that Barack Obama wasn't caring about our soldiers that were killed in action. It's a constant trying to humiliate Obama. And I think that 30% that backs Donald Trump likes when he does that. I don't know how much racism plays into what Donald Trump does, but I think there's a large hunk of it.
LEMON: [chuckles] I'm glad you said that last part. Listen, Charles, your piece I thought was fascinating today. It's in The Times, it’s called "Trump, chieftain of spite." You said if there's a defining feature of Trump as president it is that he is an all ways the anti-Obama. Not only on policy but also on matters of propriety and polish. Trump isn't governing with a vision. He's governing out of spite. Obama’s effectiveness highlights Trump’s ineptitude and this insenses Trump. Why do you think President Trump is obsessed with his predecessor?
New York Times columnist Charles Blow agreed with Brinkley that Trump’s “obsession” was centered on his racist attitudes towards Obama:
I actually don't know. It's hard to get inside anybody's head, but you can analyze what comes out of their mouth and they do. And his obsession with Obama even predates the presidency, predates the election. It was as Douglas points out the birther thing, but it was much deeper than that. It was he didn't go to the schools that he said he went to. His book was -- the first book was too good to have been possibly been written by him --it had to be written by a white man-- I mean it was everything single thing about him and everything that went wrong, he attached it to Obama. So every time even black lives matter would protest, he would attach it to Obama. Why hasn't Obama fixed this? It’s an intense fascination with one person that is inexplicable other than to be what we think it is, which is obsessive and that the only thing he can think to do...
But Lemon didn’t think Trump’s obsession was “inexplicable.” He claimed it was jealousy, pure and simple. Lemon stated Trump could never be as “classy” “smart” or “kind” as the Obamas were so he had to disparage them out of spite:
Hold on. I don't think it's inexplicable. Have you met people that study you -- you cannot buy, no matter how much money you have, billions of dollars, you can't buy class. President Obama whatever you think of his politics, is a very classy man. He's a smart man. He's one of the kindest people you ever want to meet, he and his wife are. I'm not talking about politics. Having met them and knowing them. You can't teach that. That’s something you cannot teach. I think that's something this president is jealous about. He doesn’t have those qualities. Even with all the money in the world. It’s just not there.
Blow added that Trump never fit into the New York City elite either because he wasn’t a philanthropist, before Lemon brought it back to the racism angle:
“Douglas, you said something very interesting. I’m glad you said the last part. Is this about race. Let's be real, as a historian here,” he prompted Brinkley, who responded:
Okay, I think when you’re dealing with Donald Trump in this issue, you have to deal with race baiting, you have to look at the border wall with Mexico, the comments he said after Charlottesville, that he feels by beating up on Obama that he's scoring points with people that didn't like the idea of a first African-American president. It seems to me pure and simple, and he goes back to it time and time again.
Fellow guest Matt Lewis pushed back slightly on the racism theory, saying President Trump was obsessed with a lot of things, including Obama. Lemon agreed, saying “there’s some things you cannot teach":
“He can never have, no matter how much money, he cannot buy what Barack Obama has, and that’s class,” Lemon stated.
|
|
By Chris Reeves
On Tuesday’s Morning Joe, the panel brought acclaimed Hollywood director Rob Reiner on to promote his upcoming film LBJ. Reiner was very comfortable going into attack mode on President Trump when prompted, but upon being asked about the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein, Reiner was extremely reluctant to address the issue at length.
The segment in question, unsurprisingly enough, started off with a discussion of the actual movie and what was required for actor Woody Harrelson to get into the character of President Johnson. However, in spite of ostensibly being about promoting the movie, the conversation inevitably turned to politics and, of course, Trump:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I have to ask your take, your thoughts on Donald Trump, as it stands right now, especially given, oh Lord.
WOODY HARRELSON: [laughing] Oh, I’m so psyched you asked him that.
BRZEZINSKI: [talking under Woody] Do we have an hour? Okay.
ROB REINER: [laughing] Have you, have you-
BRZEZINSKI: [talking over Rob] Rob Reiner. Trump. Go.
REINER: Have you, have you, just, just look at my Twitter account. That's all you need to know!
[panel laughs]
REINER: No, no, we're in the strangest time in American history. This is a man who’s supremely unqualified, who has no business being there except for the fact that he got elected, you know, by the, by the, not the majority, but by the Electoral College. And it's like a nightmare that you wake up every morning and you can't get out. Most times you wake up from a nightmare and you're done. You go to,-
BRZEZINSKI: [interjecting] Yeah.
REINER: -you can't escape this nightmare that we're in. It’s, it’s, every day is something horrible.
It’s a bit disconcerting to know that left-wing activists like Reiner barely believe in the legitimacy of the electoral system, although this isn’t that surprising given Hollywood’s general reaction to Trump’s presidency. Otherwise, his comments were pretty tame fare by Morning Joe’s standards.
As a follow up though, instead of continuing to harp on the narrative of Trump being an evil, stupid, sociopathic, sadistic tyrant, Mika changed the topic to the Weinstein allegations, and Reiner did not seem too pleased. He twice denied that Hollywood has a culture of tolerating criminal sexual behavior and instead found a way to turn the conversation back to Trump:
BRZEZINSKI: And, speaking of horrible, sorry to take the conversation and just, like, drop it like a rock, but I gotta ask you about Harvey Weinstein, not about him, but the, but everything we're reading and the stuff that is backed up, and for sure it seems so pervasive. It seems so supported. Is this how the industry operates-
REINER: [interjecting] No.
BRZEZINSKI: -and could we have an hones-, are you sure?
REINER: Yeah. Here's the thing. Harvey Weinstein’s disgusting. Let's just say that. But Fox News had that. Clarence Thomas-
BRZEZINSKI: [interrupting] But are we, are we sort of taking the veil off?
REINER: [talking under Mika] But wai-. No. I think what we’re doing now is it's lifted this thing and put it front and center in a big way. When, and I, this to me is the biggest problem. Women have a hard time. They're either not believed, they say they asked for it, or they’re punished. How can they go up against the world that they're in when they vote for a person who actually admitted to sexually harassing women who becomes President of the United States. How do you fight that?
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
REINER: We elected this man who actually said he abused women.
The director tried to keep on blaming Trump for women not coming out about sexual abuse, but was abruptly cut off by Scarborough. Joe appeared to jump in because he was unhappy that Reiner was trying to avoid having to substantively discuss the Weinstein issue. The resulting exchange got quite testy:
REINER: So, s-
JOE SCARBOROUGH: [interrupting] We actually, we actually asked you though, no, we actually asked you about Harvey Weinstein, and a lot of women are saying-
REINER: [starts talking over Joe] Well I am saying about Harvey Weinstein.
SCARBOROUGH: -they raped ‘em. But, but, but, but, hold on though, but, but, but, we agree with you on Donald Trump,-
REINER: [talks over Joe again] No, no, this is not about Donald Trump. This is-
SCARBOROUGH: -and I’ve always agreed with you on Donald Trump. I don't agree with you, I, I, I, I don’t agree with you on Clarence Thomas. Telling inappropriate jokes and raping women are two completely different things. There’s a false equivalency there, but the Republican Party has been pathetic in what they have turned, the evangelical community has been pathetic in turning their blind eye to Donald Trump. My question has to do not with Donald Trump or the evangelicals or Republicans, I'll attack them. What about you and Hollywood? Has Hollywood been pathetic about turning a blind eye to this behavior?
REINER: That's what I was getting to. ‘Cause this is not about Donald Trump. It has nothing to do with Donald Trump. What this has to do with is women having the inability to break through. And what it's gonna take is the men to come forward and say, when they see something like this, to do something, whether it's in Hollywood with Harvey Weinstein or whether it's at Fox News. It takes a long time for these things to come through. Look at what Bill Cosby did. It took years before women were able to come through, and they’re only coming out now because the floodgates have opened. Let's use this opportunity to have a real conversation and talk about what men need to do, because women cannot fight this battle by themselves.
Good on Joe and Mika for repeatedly pressing a prominent Hollywood director on the Weinstein abuse scandal, something that the hosts have been pretty well on top of ever since the allegations first came out almost two weeks ago (as evidenced by Brzezinski’s earlier public threats to cancel a three-book deal with Weinstein Books right after the story broke). Perhaps the fact that Scarborough had to explain to a Hollywood director that “[t]elling inappropriate jokes and raping women are two completely different things” is symptomatic of why Hollywood has had such a hard time dealing with a culture that is far too tolerant of sexual misconduct.
Perhaps the next time that Morning Joe has Rob Reiner on, instead of asking him to bloviate about how terrible Trump is, the hosts should ask Reiner about whether or not his "Committee to Investigate Russia" is doing anything to expose Hillary Clinton’s allegedly extensive connections to the Russian government and Putin.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Fresh off the distinction of being honored by Salon as a conservative (read: liberal Republican) must-follow on Twitter, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens declared on Monday’s Hardball that President Trump “reminded me of the Black Knight from the Monty Python skit” in that he’ll continue fighting even though he’ll eventually be left powerless and limbless.
Also in that segment, Mother Jones D.C. bureau chief David Corn marveled at how the two are now allies against the Trump administration and what they see as an evil, mentally unstable President.
The topic of discussion was North Korea and American foreign policy at large when host Chris Matthews observed that North Koreans react differently to Trump’s rhetoric than people within the authoritarian state.
Stephens conceded that he, as a hawk, agrees with Trump’s positions on decertifying the Iran deal and that diplomacy has failed to stop the Kim regimes, but he’s still opposed to Trump’s actions since “90 percent of policy lies in the execution and in this case, execution lies in the hands of a temperamental President who seems to think that all of his opponents...can be subjected to schoolyard bullying with equal effect and that’s really dangerous.”
“I was thinking that the President reminded me of the Black Knight from the Monty Python skit. No matter how many embarrassments he suffers, he keeps saying it’s just a scratch and he is going to fight on. At some point, he is going to be immobilized by his own rhetoric,” added Stephens.
Corn responded by touting Stephens and similar figures as sudden allies:
[W]hat strikes me right now is, you and I Bret are used to having ideological debates over foreign policy. It’s what we have done for the last couple of decades. Now we’re really talking about a dividing line between someone who is competent and responsible and completely bonkers.
Later, the crazy train chugged along as Matthews seemed only half-sure in a tease that the reports about the President ribbing Vice President Pence for his homosexual views were a joke:
Up next: new reporting on the relationship between Trump and his Vice President. This is a little bit hilarious, actually. Trump has mocked Pence’s far-right views, belittling his determination to overturn Roe v. Wade and even joking the Vice President wants to hang — joking — hang gay people. Let’s hope it’s all for fun and nonsense, that he would never do such a horrible thing.
Matthews continued this nuttiness after the break, expressing hope that the conversations alleged in a Pence hit piece courtesy of The New Yorker were a case of Trump joking around:
It says that during a meeting with a legal scholar, the President, quote, belittled Pence’s determination to overturn Roe v. Wade. The piece goes on to add when the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned towards Pence and joked, don’t ask that guy. He wants to hang them all. I assume and hope, of course, that was a joke.
Seconds later, he quipped to newly-minted NBC News writer Jonathan Allen that Trump views Pence as one of those Catholic figures from “The Da Vinci Code, some weirdo guy who flagellates himself” which Allen quickly noted was “very graphic.” So, remember that’s how some in the left view religious conservatives!
Less than a week after first comparing Trump supporters to North Koreans, Matthews doubled down during his Hardball Roundtable block:
A Washington Post report out today notes that one defining feature of managing Trump is frequent praise, which can leave this team in what seems to be a state of perpetual compliments. The White House pushes out news releases overflowing with top officials heaping flattery on Trump. You ever look at the faces of the guys in North Korea? They’re all the same. Everybody has the same expression. It’s concern or it’s laughing. And they’re always sort of making sure they’re in synchronized swimming with the dear leader, right? Does that sound like Trump’s people? Yes. It sounds like them.
Monday’s Hardball lunacy was sponsored by MSNBC advertisers IBM, MyHeritageDNA.com The State of New York, and Visionworks.
Here’s the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on October 16:
MSNBC’s Hardball
October 16, 2017
7:25 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Bret, let’s start where we might find common ground here. What is the logic between about — about humiliating Kim Jong-un? And we all know from reading, especially lately, when you have a third-generation head of a country, basically a king, almost a deity, and the people in the country, certainly the officer corps, the top field rank generals, look up to him as almost a deity, to call him bad names, make fun of him and call him Rocket Man, the whole routine, what is the purpose of that strategically?
 BRET STEPHENS: I don’t think there is a purpose. Look, I find myself in a strange position, because, as a foreign policy hawk, I supported the decertification of the Iran deal. And I agree that the last 25 years of diplomacy with North Korea haven’t worked. The problem is that 90 percent of policy lies in the execution. And in this case, execution lies in the hands of a temperamental President who seems to think that all of his opponents, whether it’s Kim Jong-un or Marco Rubio, can be subjected to schoolyard bullying with equal effect and that’s really dangerous. You want two things in foreign policy. You want clarity, and you want credibility. And with this President, you have neither. Just listening to your last segment on politics, I was thinking that the President reminded me of the Black Knight from the Monty Python skit. No matter how many embarrassments he suffers, he keeps saying it’s just a scratch and he is going to fight on. At some point, he is going to be immobilized by his own rhetoric.
MATTHEWS: Yes, it’s like the guy going through a Veg-O-Matic. He looked like he had been split so many times, and he kept saying, don’t feel a thing. There was a striking number, by the way, gentlemen, in the new Quinnipiac poll. And this one grabbed me; 46 percent, a plurality of Republicans said they would support a preemptive strike against North Korea; 41 percent would oppose it. Back to you, Bret. I want you to start with this in the ping-pong match we’re having here. How do you have a preemptive strike against a country with, what, huge numbers are artillery facing south against our ally South Korea? How do you pincer them — I mean, how do you puncture them in a way that, oh, you got me, I got nothing I can do about it? How does that happen?
(....)
DAVID CORN: And it’s even more dangerous than that, because he — Trump keeps making threats. Now, we look at Trump. We — some people see him as a buffoon. Some see him as a bully and —
MATTHEWS: Some people call him Hitler [INAUDIBLE]
CORN: Yes, right, and can dismiss it, but if you’re sitting in North Korea’s place, you got to look at these threats as real. And if he is going to take out you or your nukes before you can use them, that gives you an incentive to strike and what strikes me right now is, you and I Bret are used to having ideological debates over foreign policy. It’s what we have done for the last couple of decades. Now we’re really talking about a dividing line between someone who is competent and responsible and completely bonkers.
MATTHEWS: That’s not where we should be in a democracy. Thank you so much, Bret Stephens. Good to have you as our colleague. Did I say that right? Colleague.
STEPHENS: I think you got that right. It wasn’t too hard to say.
MATTHEWS: It is hard. Well, I don’t even like the word. It seems a little pompous. Anyway, David Corn, thank you. How about friendly ally?
(....)
MATTHEWS: Up next: new reporting on the relationship between Trump and his Vice President. This is a little bit hilarious, actually. Trump has mocked Pence’s far-right views, belittling his determination to overturn Roe v. Wade and even joking the Vice President wants to hang — joking — hang gay people. Let’s hope it’s all for fun and nonsense, that he would never do such a horrible thing.
(....)
MATTHEWS: While the Trump administration formally supports the measure, formally, a New Yorker profile of Vice President Pence titled “The Danger of President Pence” says Trump has mocked the Vice President privately over his views on abortion and gay rights. It says that during a meeting with a legal scholar, the President, quote, belittled Pence’s determination to overturn Roe v. Wade. The piece goes on to add when the conversation turned to gay rights, Trump motioned towards Pence and joked, don’t ask that guy. He wants to hang them all. I assume and hope, of course, that was a joke.
(....)
MATTHEWS: Jonathan, you’re chuckling because you don’t think this is — this is humorous that he talks about the VP the way he does, right?
JONATHAN ALLEN: No, I’m —
MATTHEWS: He’s super [INAUDIBLE] out of The Da Vinci Code, some weirdo guy who flagellates himself. That’s basically the way he describes him.
ALLEN: Well, that’s very graphic.
 (....)
LIBBY CASEY: Absolutely and I do have to say one thing. Gay rights activists are not laughing at this. I mean, was it a joke? Was it sort of this one thing —
MATTHEWS: Of course, hanging is not a joke.
CASEY: — right, absolutely and so, there’s a lot of outrage —
MATTHEWS: Killing somebody — cruelly killing somebody.
CASEY: — and concern over this kind of language, coming from the President of the United States, even, you know, ribbing his VP.
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
After downplaying NFL commissioner Roger Goodell calling for an end to National Anthem protests one week earlier, on Tuesday, NBC’s Today lobbied hard for team owners to reach a “compromise” with players at an upcoming League meeting over the “thorny, touchy topic” of showing respect for the Anthem.
“NFL players and owners set to meet today to discuss those controversial National Anthem protests,” co-host Savannah Guthrie announced at the top of the show. She then fretted: “Will the League try to force players to stand, or can a compromise be reached?”
Minutes later, fellow co-host Matt Lauer noted that “the issue is taking center stage at the fall meeting of League owners.” In the report that followed, correspondent Ron Mott declared: “You know, these NFL owners’ meetings don’t usually attract widespread media attention, but obviously today’s gathering is much different as owners and players try to find some common ground over what’s become a thorny, touchy topic. And, of course, that’s the National Anthem.”
Actually, the upcoming NFL meeting received little or no attention on the other broadcast networks Tuesday morning. ABC’s Good Morning America only featured a nine-second news brief on the topic, while CBS This Morning skipped it entirely.
After describing the “thorny” topic of expressing patriotism, Mott explained that it was “an issue that has largely overshadowed football itself this season.” He told viewers: “At today’s regularly scheduled owners’ meeting, players and union leaders will aim to reach consensus with all 32 teams on how the League should tackle ongoing National Anthem protests and the social issues important to players.”
A soundbite ran from Mike Florio of NBC Sports imploring: “The goal is to try to solve the Anthem issue once and for all. Not with an edict, not with a mandate, but with some sort of an offer to the players, a platform, separate from the Anthem.”
Blaming President Trump for “prompting large demonstrations beyond the handful of players who had been quietly kneeling” after criticizing the protests, Mott touted how “L.A. Chargers offensive lineman Russell Okung defended the protests [Colin] Kaepernick started.” The reporter quoted Okung’s complaint that Kaepernick’s “message has now be distorted, co-opted and used to further divide us along the very racial lines he was highlighting.”
On Monday, all three networks hyped Kaepernick’s lawsuit against the NFL alleging “collusion” against hiring him.
Wrapping up the already one-sided report, Mott cited a liberal politician voicing support for the protests: “Cedric Richmond, a Democrat from New Orleans and head of the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus], sent a letter to Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, saying the issue is not black patriotism but racial inequality and police brutality, and that the CBC stands with players trying to call attention to that.”
While many Americans would not see standing for the National Anthem as being a “thorny” issue that required a “compromise,” the liberal media have been so deep in the tank promoting the left-wing demonstrations that they’ve completely lost touch with much of the country.
The biased segment was brought to viewers by Subaru, Cheerios, and State Farm.
Here is a full transcript of the October 17 report:
7:01 AM ET TEASE:
 SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Tackling the Issue. NFL players and owners set to meet today to discuss those controversial National Anthem protests. Will the League try to force players to stand, or can a compromise be reached?
7:15 AM ET SEGMENT:
MATT LAUER: In other news, we’re expecting some new developments today tied to National Anthem protests before NFL games that have led to heated debates nationwide. The issue is taking center stage at the fall meeting of League owners, taking place here in New York. NBC’s Ron Mott is there. Ron, good morning to you.
RON MOTT: Hey, Matt, good morning. You know, these NFL owners’ meetings don’t usually attract widespread media attention, but obviously today’s gathering is much different as owners and players try to find some common ground over what’s become a thorny, touchy topic. And, of course, that’s the National Anthem.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Anthem Protests in NFL Spotlight; Owners, Players Meet to Find Common Ground]
In a few hours, NFL players and owners sitting down to discuss standing up for the National Anthem, an issue that has largely overshadowed football itself this season. At today’s regularly scheduled owners’ meeting, players and union leaders will aim to reach consensus with all 32 teams on how the League should tackle ongoing National Anthem protests and the social issues important to players.
MIKE FLORIO [NBC SPORTS & PROFOOTBALLTALK.COM]: The goal is to try to solve the Anthem issue once and for all. Not with an edict, not with a mandate, but with some sort of an offer to the players, a platform, separate from the Anthem.
MOTT: President Trump took aim at the NFL last month, prompting large demonstrations beyond the handful of players who had been quietly kneeling.
DONALD TRUMP: Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, “Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired. He’s fired!”
MOTT: Mr. Trump has kept the issue alive with tweets and comments, discussing the protests again on Monday.
TRUMP: When you go down and take a knee or any other way, you’re sitting, essentially, for our great National Anthem. You're disrespecting our flag and you’re disrespecting our country.
MOTT: Colin Kaepernick, who last season initiated the protests against racial inequality and police brutality, this week filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing the League of colluding to keep him out of the game since he became a free agent back in March. In an open letter to fellow players published on the Player’s Tribune website, L.A. Chargers offensive lineman Russell Okung defended the protests Kaepernick started. “As Kap’s message has now be distorted, co-opted and used to further divide us along the very racial lines he was highlighting,” Okung wrote, “we as players have a responsibility to come together and respond collectively.”
Cedric Richmond, a Democrat from New Orleans and head of the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus], sent a letter to Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, saying the issue is not black patriotism but racial inequality and police brutality, and that the CBC stands with players trying to call attention to that. Guys?
LAUER: Okay, Ron, just a couple blocks from us here in New York City, thanks very much.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment