| |
|
By Scott Whitlock
What happened to believing women when they speak out against powerful male accusers? On Thursday, evidence broke of a 2006 incident in which Democrat Al Franken groped and forcibly kissed TV and radio personality Leeaan Tweeden. Photographic proof backs up her claim.
Yet, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt described the now-Senator's predatory behavior this way: “[Franken] took a picture, which his office now says was of a joke, that showed him potentially — not actually groping — but mock-groping her while she was asleep.”
In the noon hour, Hunt repeated her mild description. This time, she didn't cite the Franken staff and made it her own: “Then she also published a picture that was given to her of her asleep with Senator Franken mock-groping her.” This isn’t how Tweeden described the unwanted attention. She didn’t offer qualifiers such as “mock-groping” or “not actually groping”:
It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one:
I couldn’t believe it. He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep.
I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated.
How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?
Doesn’t Tweeden have a right to be believed on her own terms and not have a journalist downgrade her claims against a liberal, Democratic senator?
Later on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell described what Franken did as “groping” and didn’t qualify it.
A transcript of the two comments is below.
 MSNBC Live11/16/17 11:53 p.m. Eastern
KASIE HUNT: We are starting to see some immediate reaction to this on Capitol Hill to those allegations and you covered what she had to say pretty well. In a nutshell, she said she was on this USO tour that Al Franken wrote — he was a comedian then, not a Senator — wrote into the script that he should kiss her. Tried to get her to rehearse it. It was uncomfortable. She avoided him after that. Then he took a picture, which his office now says was of a joke, that showed him potentially — not actually groping, but mock-groping her while she was asleep.
(....)
12:17 p.m. Eastern
HUNT: She says he wrote a part into their skit that required him to kiss her and that he tried to rehearse the kiss backstage that made her uncomfortable. And then she also published a picture that was given to her of her asleep with Senator Franken mock-groping her.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
A Thursday afternoon CNN Newsroom panel showcased political tribalism as three liberal journalists downplayed the disturbing sexual misconduct allegations against Democratic Senator Al Franken (Minn.) by harping on the fact that Franken was “just a comedian” while those against Roy Moore and President Trump were far more serious.
“But just out of the gate, the fact that you have Gloria, you know, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, right, from the left and right, both saying there needs to be an ethics investigation. I realize that this was years and years ago, this story, and he was a private citizen at the time, but can he survive this,” host Brooke Baldwin wondered to chief political analyst Gloria Borger.
Borger admitted that “[i]t remains to be seen,” but immediately went into spin mode by downplaying the fallout, stating that KABC radio host Leann Tweeden “did not call for him to step down or say he ought to step down” and didn’t render an opinion upon being told an investigation had been launched.
From there, Borger continued proving this segment as one of political tribalism, declaring that what matters most is “the context in which all of this occurring, which is Moore — Judge Moore — and that has been, you know, brewing and percolating, whatever you want to say, for days and days and days.”
She added that Tweeden’s story will not be “the last” woman to come forward with disturbing allegations, but what came next from Borger was quite disturbing: “This is scratching the surface. He was not a member of the Congress at the time this occurred. He was just a comedian.”
Excuse me? Even with the full context (as just provided), it’s befuddling. “Just a comedian?” Borger would go onto all out the President for the allegations against him over the years, so what words would she use to describe Trump from the 1980s and 1990s?
But wait, there’s more! Here’s Borger continuing:
We'll see if her coming out gives other women sort of, you know, more purpose and allows them to talk about people who are currently in positions of power who could effect them. Franken has no effect on her at this particular time in her life. It's a little bit more difficult for women who were working in the Congress. But I think what you are going to see is more and more on this as we see around the country.
CNN contributor Emily Jane Fox was also part of the discussion, except she couldn’t do any better as Fox harped almost exclusively on Moore and the few left supporting him:
It's interesting what you think about what Judge Moore and his supporters are thinking about as you watch this. If he does continue on in the election and win a seat in the U.S. election, this is the climate he'll enter into and he's watching what they are saying on both sides in these allegations Senator Franken, what are they going to do allegations against Judge Moore? And I think that's an important thing for the people who continue to support Judge Moore, that this is the climate that he's going to enter into and it's not for giving for anybody for any kind of allegation. And certainly the ones against Judge Moore are more serious.
Baldwin sought legal analysis from Faith Jenkins before going back to Borger and discussing not Franken but Moore and Trump:
Yes and what about the President? I guess I'm left wondering...questions have been shouted at the president, as he was coming, as he was going when meeting with the House Republicans before the big vote on the Hill. Nothing, according to Jeff Zeleny’s reporting, part of the reason that he hasn't commented on the whole Roy Moore piece of his whole story is, as I mentioned his own personal, let's rip the band-aid off, his own issue with women coming forward through the years alleging sexual, you know, assault and harassment against the now President. But how long can the White House just sit on this and not say anything?
“However, I would argue this is about something larger than Donald Trump and it is about the Republican Party and it is about the values of a country and it is about women and the way women are treated in the workplace. And elsewhere. And that presidents are supposed to speak on these kinds of issues. And if he can't speak on that issue, his silence is very telling,” Borger replied.
Here’s the relevant transcript from November 16's CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin:
CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin
November 16, 2017
2:18 p.m. Eastern
BROOKE BALDWIN: But just out of the gate, the fact that you have Gloria, you know, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, right, from the left and right, both saying there needs to be an ethics investigation. I realize that this was years and years ago, this story, and he was a private citizen at the time, but can he survive this?
 GLORIA BORGER: It remains to be seen. I mean, we should say that Leeann did not call for him to step down or say he ought to step down. When she was telling they were having an Ethics Committee investigation, she said that's on him.
BALDWIN: And he said yes I'll participate.
BORGER: Yes. We have to look at the context in which all of this occurring, which is Moore. Judge Moore. And that has been, you know, brewing and percolating, whatever you want to say, for days and days and days. So now then you have a Democrat and these charges and I can be sure of one thing, which is this is not the last. This is just —
BALDWIN: The last which?
BORGER: The last woman who will come out against a member of Congress. This is scratching the surface. He was not a member of the Congress at the time this occurred. He was just a comedian.
BALDWIN: Right.
BORGER: We'll see if her coming out gives other women sort of, you know, more purpose and allows them to talk about people who are currently in positions of power who could effect them. Franken has no effect on her at this particular time in her life. It's a little bit more difficult for women who were working in the Congress. But I think what you are going to see is more and more on this as we see around the country. Congress is always a lagging indicator and in this, it is as well.
 BALDWIN: She just also — to mentioned when you read her whole — her whole — Leeann's piece, I think one of the reasons she spoke out was because the woman we just played a clip of, Congresswoman Jackie Spier was on radio show and she thought, alright, if she can tell her Me Too story, then I can as well. What do you think?
EMILY JANE FOX: It's interesting what you think about what Judge Moore and his supporters are thinking about as you watch this. If he does continue on in the election and win a seat in the U.S. election, this is the climate he'll enter into and he's watching what they are saying on both sides in these allegations Senator Franken, what are they going to do allegations against Judge Moore? And I think that's an important thing for the people who continue to support Judge Moore, that this is the climate that he's going to enter into and it's not for giving for anybody for any kind of allegation. And certainly the ones against Judge Moore are more serious.
(....)
BALDWIN: Yes and what about the President? I guess I'm left wondering, and Gloria here’s my question to you, questions have been shouted at the president, as he was coming, as he was going when meeting with the house Republicans before the big vote on the hill. Nothing, according to Jeff Zeleny’s reporting, part of the reason that he hasn't commented on the whole Roy Moore piece of his whole story is, as I mentioned his own personal, let's rip the band-aid off, his own issue with women coming forward through the years alleging sexual, you know, assault and harassment against the now President. But how long can the White House just sit on this and not say anything?
BORGER: Well, you’re going to see Sarah Huckabee Sanders come out and perhaps she will be the mouth piece for the President in this.
BALDWIN: But especially as a woman.
 BORGER: But, you know, don't forget, during the campaign when he was confronted with all these women, who are now by the way come out again if they haven't already, and I believe one or two have and said what about us? Are you forgetting us? He said they were lying. He said he didn't believe them and that it was completely fabricated. So, it's very difficult for him to say to Moore. who was saying the same thing that this is fabricated, et cetera, et, it's very difficult for him to say, well you should have believed me, that they were lying, but, I want him to step aside. Everybody understands that this is difficult for him politically. However, I would argue this is about something larger than Donald Trump and it is about the Republican Party and it is about the values of a country and it is about women and the way women are treated in the workplace.
BALDWIN: Yes.
BORGER: And elsewhere.
BALDWIN: Yes.
BORGER: And that presidents are supposed to speak on these kinds of issues. And if he can't speak on that issue, his silence is very telling.
BALDWIN: Agreed. Very curious to see how Sarah Sanders handles this in just a little while. It’s the first White House press briefing since, of course, this big Asia trip. So how — what she says and maybe what she doesn't say will be quite telling.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Amidst all the coverage Thursday devoted to KABC Radio host Leeann Tweeden’s sexual misconduct claims against Democratic Senator Al Franken (Minn.), the most important segment took place on CNN’s The Lead as Tweeden sat down for an emotional 33-minute-long interview with host Jake Tapper.
Tweeden stood out for both her courage and the passion in denouncing sexual misconduct, but Tapper’s questioning and reassurances that she had “nothing to be embarrassed about” also made for both compelling and necessary television.
Tapper started by giving Tweeden time to describe what she recalled about her 2006 USO tour in the Middle East with Franken and then about the initial shock upon seeing a photo of Franken groping her:
TAPPER: You received a CD of pictures from the photographer, and this was there. This was obviously taken when you were sleeping, and what was your reaction? Obviously, you didn't find it funny. I don't know anybody over the age of nine that might find it funny, but what did you think?
TWEEDEN: I mean, I saw it and, you know, knowing how I felt about him, I was angry because in my mind, he was doing that to — that was like his parting gift, right? Like, ha! She's going to see that after we're all gone and that's like, I gotcha, you know? Ha, ha! That's going to be the last thing she sees and, you know, I got the last laugh.
Tweeden added that she’s “been angry about it, Jake, for over 10 years” and she’s “held inside — my circle of friends and my husband have known how I felt about it for so long and, you know, I wanted to come out with it 10 years ago, and, you know, it wasn't the right time and, you know, I don't want anything.”
She stated that she was driven to come out after Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier (Calif.) appeared on her radio show to talk about her own sexual assault experience and even more so because Speier’s story was strikingly similar to hers. Tweeden continued:
I said, you know what? That's going to make me talk and maybe if Al Franken did this to somebody else, or if somebody else has a story and they see me talking about it because, look, I was nervous to come out about it. This doesn't make me feel good. Everybody goes oh, you're so strong, you're going to feel so great talking about it. I still have a knot in my stomach. This isn't — you know, this isn't like some like, oh, yes, I'm going to do it and feel great about it[.]
Tapper stepped in, telling her that this is a “difficult” thing “to do.” Next, he asked Tweeden why she thought it was “important for people to hear” her story.
 Heartbreakingly, Tweeden replied that this whole thing has been “humiliating” (to which Tapper advised her to say off Twitter):
It's — why do you think there are people that haven't talked — there are still a lot of people that haven't told their stories and, you know, in the case of Roy Moore, there are people that 40 years later that are reluctantly coming out about it. I mean, it's embarrassing. It's humiliating. There are still people I've looked on Twitter that are still blaming me for it. I'm like, you look at the picture, I'm asleep and they’re still somehow it's my fault.
On the question of whether Tweeden accepts Franken’s apology, she stated that she did, even though the first one “was very short and very brief” as if “a staffer put that out hastily.” Nonetheless, she determined that he “seem[ed] heartfelt and I believe it and I believe him.”
Tweeden repeatedly turned the discussion away from herself to the broader issue. In one such instance, she observed that “[p]eople need to take a long, hard look at the culture that has been happening since, you know, men and women have walked the Earth and I hope it's changing, and I hope it will change because it's going to take all of us.”
A few moments later, Tapper asked if she would “testify before the Senate Ethics Committee” and Tweeden revealed that she would “[i]f they asked me to.” Again showing grace and humility, Tweeden opined that she’s “not asking” for Franken to lose his Senate seat because “that’s not why I came out with my story.”
“It was wrong, and I think everybody needs to take a good, hard look. And I think he came from a place of honesty there. And I think that's really where change is going to be driven from. Not from a — not from the victims coming out and talking about it, I think it's going to come from the people who maybe do the abusing that don't even realize they're doing the abusing because it's so a part of the culture,” Tweeden argued.
Next triggered what would start the most emotional parts of the interview. Tweeden began elaborating on how she’s been feeling when she started talking about her husband [emphasis mine]:
 Look, this morning, right before I talked about it on our radio show, I was terrified, you know? I told my husband right before I came to do your show, I'm sitting in the car and I'm like, there was a moment this morning, all of the sudden I tried to go out and go to the bathroom and there were all kinds of TV cameras in the hallway, I had no idea, Jake, honestly, I had no idea what it was going to turn into. I thought maybe a camera was going to show up and then all of the sudden, the hallway was blocked and I kind of like — I need to go to the bathroom and my husband texted me, how are you holding up?” And I literally just locked myself in the bathroom for a minute and I wanted to start crying. It was just sort of like overwhelming emotion, you know, and I even had Lauren, one of the girls that came out about Harvey Weinstein, who’s a friend of ours and I've known her for a long time and she texted me last night she knew I was going to talk about it this morning, and she said: “You're going to feel better. You know, once it comes out, you're going to feel better.” I haven't gotten to that point yet, I'll be honest, I still sort of have that knot in my stomach and, you know, I don't feel like yay, it feels great coming out and talking about it. I mean, I still feel, you know, kind of sick about it. It's not a feel-good thing. I still feel sort of embarrassed about it. It’s — you know — it’s embarrassing.
Wow.
In response, Tapper pointed out: “You don't need me to say that this, but, obviously, you did nothing to be embarrassed about. I know you know that intellectually, but there's nothing you did that you should be embarrassed about.”
Tapper decided to continue asking how Tweeden was feeling and the subject of her two children came up. Not surprisingly, Tweeden started crying:
TAPPER: How are you holding up? You have a loving husband. You have a support network there. Are you doing okay?
TWEEDEN: I just want to go home and — I have a two-year-old and a four-year-old, and I just want to hug my babies and my husband. You know, it’s just been — that's all. You know, I've been up since 2:00 in the morning, California time, I haven't eaten anything. I have like cotton mouth. I don't know if you could tell. I feel like my teeth are sticking to my gums, you know, I'm okay, I'm holding up. You know, I just — it's been nonstop. That's all. I'm okay. Thank you. I'm alright.
The CNN host told a teary-eyed Tweeden that, truthfully, “[t]he world that you're making for your children, for your two-year-old and four-year-old you realize that you are making it better for them.”
Tweeden revealed that she has both a boy and a girl, so Tapper noted that “both of them need to be impacted by this”:
TWEEDEN: I have a boy and a girl.
TAPPER: Okay, well, but both of them need to be impacted by this, right? Not just the girl.
TWEEDEN: I — you know, you always — I don't want to be cliche, but you talk about leaving the world a better place for your kids, you know — [CRYING] sorry.
TAPPER: Nothing to be sorry about.
TWEEDEN: I didn't think I was going to do that, but you know, you do. You want to leave, you know — you try to set examples for your children, right? You want to leave the world a better place. You try to — you want to set examples and you want the world to be better for your kids. You want to leave it better than what you had it And it's like you know, I've had so many of my girlfriends text me. I mean, my phone died already twice today because people have been texting and calling and they're like, you know, stay stron,g because you're doing something that is going to make the world better for your daughter. You know and maybe I am. You know. I didn't look at it that way, but maybe I am And if I am, okay. I'll take it.
 TAPPER: You are. But of course you are. But it's not just for your daughter. You're doing it for your son too. Right?
TWEEDEN: Right.
TAPPER: Because he doesn't — you don't want him to grow up and either misbehave or, you know, have women friends or family members who are affected that way because obviously what you're doing is making the world a better place because you're bringing awareness in a very public and I know you don't feel it, but very brave way. You said something earlier that surprised me. You didn't know how much this was going to — how big a deal this was going to be. You thought there might be one camera. You didn't know it was going to be such a huge story of interest to so many people. Why?
TWEEDEN: Well, I mean, I knew it would be a story because it deals with Senator Franken. I didn't know that it would be like this. You know. I mean — I guess, I mean, I guess it's like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to somebody and then seeing it with your own eyes, I guess maybe it's just a little bit different in perspective but, you know, but I just — it's been a whirlwind. It's been nonstop.
After starting at the 4:18 p.m. Eastern mark, the interview ended just past 4:51 p.m. Eastern on a hopeful note:
 TWEEDEN: Change is never easy. You know, change is — change tough, but if you want to be on the right side of history and you want to make change, you know, you're going to have to do some walking and believe — believe in that and do it, you know?
TAPPER: Well, you're making change, Leeann Tweeden. Thank you so much. We're honored you told your story to us.
TWEEDEN: Thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: Talk to you soon.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Prior to his emotional interview with KABC radio anchor Leeann Tweeden, CNN’s The Leadhost Jake Tapper briefly grilled former Bill Clinton confidant Paul Begala on the late and sudden examinations on the part of the media concerning Clinton’s sexual misdeeds.
Tapper built off of his astute observation on Monday about the media treating the Clinton accusers “poorly” and not giving them “the same respect” that Roy Moore’s accusers have rightfully been afforded.
Here’s Tapper’s question to Begala:
And Paul, let's talk about the re-examination that's going on right now of Bill Clinton because there are a lot of people writing op-eds in The New York Times and talking about it on television about how given today's 2017 [morals], back in the '90s, Bill Clinton, maybe, should not have been able to get away with what he got away with and maybe the media and the feminist community and others should have been more condemning of his behavior.
Begala responded as a tried and true Clinton lackey would, bemoaning how “[t]hat conversation” blasting Clinton “occur[red] 20 years ago” and anyone who doesn’t remember it just wasn’t “around when it did.”
Sorry, Paul, but most political reporters aren’t millennials, so they most certainly were around or at least were able to recall news stories from the 1990s. What was Begala’s evidence? Well, it cited a lone article Tapper had recently shared on Twitter by the late Marjorie Williams from May 1998 in Vanity Fair.
“That conversation did happen at the time. And he didn't get away with anything, right? He was investigated, he was litigated, he was impeached, he had finally, after lying about the affair, admitted it, apologized, multiple times, in a very heartfelt away way, privately as well as publicly, and the country forgave him,” Begala spun.
Begala tried to interrupt, but Tapper appropriately pushed back, noting that much of the so-called litigation and impeachment dealt with one of the women: “But that's one of the many allegations against him. Paula Jones. There’s Gennifer Flowers. There’s Juanita Broaddrick. There's Kathleen Wiley. There's a bunch.”
Ignoring the fact that those allegations were not dealt with and how NBC assisted the Clintons by sitting on the Broaddrick story, Begala reiterated that “all” of those women’s allegations “were investigated, litigated, adjudicated.”
Time out. Full stop. If these claims were examined (as Begala claimed), Clinton would have likely disappeared from the public eye. Alas, that’s not what happened. Remember Hillary Clinton’s vast right-wing conspiracy interview? One could spend a lifetime finding examples of how the media ran interference for the Clintons (as Tapper generally alluded to on Monday).
Begala turned his ire to the fact that the federal government and the taxpayers “gave Ken Starr $70 million and 78 FBI agents in two years, President Clinton is the most investigated person in American history and people arrived where they arrived.”
The man behind the Mitt Romneny-killed-a-woman ad concluded:
And it was not a close call by the overwhelming majority they thought he was a good man who did a bad thing and should remain as our President because he was doing a great job. He left office after all of that, the most popular President in the history of polling. It doesn't mean people approved of that. They condemned it rightfully. But it's because they decided he was a good person doing a good job who did a bad thing and asked for forgiveness. He apologized, he admitted, he confessed, and he begged for forgiveness.
Here’s the relevant transcript from CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper on November 16:
CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper
November 16, 2017
4:16 p.m. Eastern
 JAKE TAPPER: And Paul, let's talk about the re-examination that's going on right now of Bill Clinton because there are a lot of people writing op-eds in The New York Times and talking about it on television about how given today's 2017 [morals], back in the '90s, Bill Clinton, maybe, should not have been able to get away with what he got away with and maybe the media and the feminist community and others should have been more condemning of his behavior.
PAUL BEGALA: That conversation did occur 20 years ago. It’s just a lot of people weren't around when it did. You, for example, retweeted a scathing piece Marjorie Williams piece — the late Marjorie Williams — from Vanity Fair tearing into feminists who defended Clinton at the time. That conversation did happen at the time. And he didn't get away with anything, right? He was investigated, he was litigated, he was impeached, he had finally, after lying about the affair, admitted it, apologized, multiple times, in a very heartfelt away way, privately as well as publicly, and the country forgave him.
TAPPER: But that's one of the many allegations against him.
BEGALA: Yes, but all of those allegations
TAPPER: Paula Jones.
BEGALA: Yes.
TAPPER: There’s Gennifer Flowers. There’s Juanita Broaddrick. There's Kathleen Wiley. There's a bunch.
BEGALA: All of which were investigated, litigated, adjudicated. We gave Ken Starr $70 million and 78 FBI agents in two years, President Clinton is the most investigated person in American history and people arrived where they arrived. And it was not a close call by the overwhelming majority they thought he was a good man who did a bad thing and should remain as our President because he was doing a great job. He left office after all of that, the most popular President in the history of polling. It doesn't mean people approved of that. They condemned it rightfully. But it's because they decided he was a good person doing a good job who did a bad thing and asked for forgiveness. He apologized, he admitted, he confessed, and he begged for forgiveness.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 The Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) could finally breathe a sigh of relief on Thursday after the corruption trial against Democratic Senator Bob Menendez ended (at least for now) with a mistrial. Since the trial began 71 days ago, the network evening newscasts did everything in their power not to report it, effectively hiding it from their viewers. But Thursday evening saw all three of them find time to highlight Menendez’s good fortune.
Since the Menendez trial began on September 9, NBC News had not dedicated a single second of airtime between their morning and evening newscasts. For them, the story barely existed. Yet on Thursday, they managed to cover the story but the airtime was fleeting. Anchor Lester Holt gave the mistrial a mere 23 seconds. In contrast, that same evening they spent one minute and 51 seconds pushing negative speculation about the new Museum of the Bible.
“Following more than a week of deliberations a judge today declared a mistrial in Senator Bob Menendez's bribery trial after the jury reported it was deadlocked,” Holt announced with no explanation of why it was the first time their viewers were hearing it from them. “Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, was accused of accepting expensive gifts in exchange for political favors.”
NBC was so out of practice they got the jury deliberation time dead wrong. Holt claimed they were talking for over a week but in reality, it was nearly two weeks before the mistrial was declared. The deliberations started on October 30.
ABC’s World News Tonight had not dared to report on the story since the trial began, but come the mistrial, they only spent 19 seconds on it. Up until that point, Good Morning America had only mentioned the trial once, giving it one minute and 48 seconds. What made WNT’s coverage even more irresponsible was the fact that they spent one minute and 22 seconds boosting the Black Friday deals available a week early.
The coverage of the Menendez mistrial on CBS Evening News was the most biased in favor of the Democrat. After failing to report on the trial for 70 days, CBS Evening News spent one minute and 50 seconds boasting about the mistrial and Menendez’s good fortune. Before the mistrial, CBS This Morning was the only program for the network to mention the trial at 22 seconds.
CBS correspondent Anna Werner began her report by touting how “supporters cheered as Senator Robert Menendez stepped to the podium to blast government prosecutors.” “Menendez faced 18 counts of alleged corruption. Prosecutors said he did favors for a long-time friend, eye Dr. Salomon Melgen, in exchange for gifts,” she added, failing to mention the accusation he interfered in U.S. foreign affairs on Melgen’s behalf.
It was obvious that this was the first time they were reporting the trial because Werner pronounced Dr. Melgen name incorrectly. She also highlighted that one juror “says nine others in the room agreed with him. Only two favored conviction.” And in wrapping up her report, she hyped Menendez’s warning to his enemies: "Menendez had one more thing to say as he heads back to Washington. He said, 'To those who were digging my political grave so you could jump into my seat, I know who you are and I won't forget you.'"
And their claim about the deliberation time was vastly inaccurate as well. “The jury in Newark was hopelessly deadlocked after six days of deliberations,” Temporary Anchor Anthony Mason claimed.
All three evening newscasts blacked out the first corruption trial of a sitting United States senator since 1981 for 70 days. And when they finally reported it, two of them gave it less than 30 seconds. Not only was this biased in favor of a Democrat, it was deliberate and irresponsible.
Transcripts below:
ABC
World News Tonight
November 16, 2017
6:42:09 – 6:42:28 PM Eastern [19 seconds]
DAVID MUIR: Next, a mistrial for Senator Bob Menendez in his corruption case after jurors said they were deadlocked. The New Jersey Democrat accused of using his political influence to help a Florida eye doctor in exchange for gifts and campaign contributions. Menendez denied all charges, saying the two men were close, quote: “Like brothers.” No word yet on whether prosecutors will try again.
NBC Nightly News
November 16, 2017
7:09:23 – 7:09:46 PM Eastern [23 seconds]
LESTER HOLT: Following more than a week of deliberations a judge today declared a mistrial in Senator Bob Menendez's bribery trial after the jury reported it was deadlocked. Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, was accused of accepting expensive gifts in exchange for political favors. Prosecutors haven't said whether they'll retry him, but the Senate Ethics Committee says it will open or reopen an inquiry.
...
 CBS Evening NewsNovember 16, 2017 6:38:27 -6:40:17 PMEastern [1 minute 50 seconds]
ANTHONY MASON: A mistrial was declared today in the federal bribery trial of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey. The jury in Newark was hopelessly deadlocked after six days of deliberations. Anna Werner reports Menendez, a Democrat, considers that a victory.
[Cuts to video]
ANNA WERNER: Supporters cheered as Senator Robert Menendez stepped to the podium to blast government prosecutors.
BOB MENENDEZ: The way this case started was wrong. The way it was investigated was wrong. The way it was prosecuted was wrong.
WERNER: Menendez faced 18 counts of alleged corruption. Prosecutors said he did favors for a long-time friend, eye doctor Salomon Melgen, in exchange for gifts. The Senator's lawyer Abbe Lowell.
ABBE LOWELL: This is what happens when you put a real 25-year friendship on trial.
WERNER: The trial lasted ten weeks. Why the deadlock?
ED NORRIS: I thought he was not guilty.
WERNER: And juror Ed Norris says nine others in the room agreed with him. Only two favored conviction.
NORRIS: I don't think the government proved it.
(…)
WERNER: The Justice Department has not said whether it will try Menendez a second time.
MENENDEZ: To those who left me, who abandoned me in my darkest moment, I forgive you. To those who embraced me in my darkest moment, I love you. To those New Jersians who gave me the benefit of the doubt, I thank you.
[Cuts back to live]
WERNER: Menendez had one more thing to say as he heads back to Washington. He said, "To those who were digging my political grave so you could jump into my seat, I know who you are and I won't forget you."
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 After conservative media forced the networks and liberal cable news to finally cover the latest FBI revelations over the Clinton Foundation’s financial dealings with Russia, they’ve changed tactics from ignoring the story, to dismissing it as bogus.
MSNBC host Katy Tur bragged on Wednesday’s Deadline: White House that the media were fully aware of the Uranium One story, during the campaign, but purposefully chose to ignore it.
Speaking to her fellow panel of liberals and Clinton defenders, Tur scoffed that President Trump repeatedly tried to bring up the Uranium One story on the campaign trail, but she, and her fellow journalists, wouldn’t take the bait.
Tur slammed the story as a “desperate” move by Trump since she admitted, it was a regular talking point from his campaign in 2015 and 2016, which the media refused to report on:
So long to bring this up, too, which is it's almost surprising. Donald Trump brought up Uranium One and his ilk brought up Uranium One during the campaign and it was shot down so many times by me and other reporters in our own reporting. And then it went dark. They didn't really bring it up again until recently. It goes to show you how desperate they've become to push back on the special counsel in the Russia investigation and what has been coming out and dripping out from that.
Fellow guest Jeremy Peters of the New York Times also dismissed the story as “political catnip” for conservatives.
You know what it is Nicolle? It's the Clintons. They're political catnip for this type of conservative. You see it with the reaction to judge Moore. What about Bill Clinton? He had relations with an intern in the white house. They can't help themselves. Every time there is a Republican scandal, the answer is always, well, what did Bill Clinton do? What did Hillary Clinton do? You're seeing the same thing.
While Tur added that Trump was only bringing up it again because it was “politically expedient” for him to do so.
“When things get hairy for him, Hillary Clinton once again. It's their way, the Republicans' way, Donald Trump's way of taking some of the heat off his own shoulders,” she said dismissively.
As a reminder, on October 17, The Hill reported that newly released documents from the FBI showed that the Clinton Foundation received massive kickbacks from the Obama Administration’s dealings with Russia over the Uranium One deal, to the tune of millions of dollars, all the while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The newly corroborated information was widely reported by conservative blogs and Fox News, last month but the allegations that the Clintons benefitted financially from the deal was confirmed by the New York Times back in 2015.
So for all MSNBC and CNN’s fretting that Uranium One is a “dumb conspiracy theory” “clown show” and a “debunked” “closed case,” their eagerness to silence the supposed non-story speaks volumes.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment