| |
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 In a CNN scoop out Monday, Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter reported that ABC News President James Goldston angrily tore into his staff on Monday during an editorial conference call, “ and announced that [Brian] Ross, the network's chief investigative reporter, will no longer cover stories related to President Trump.” The move comes after Ross was suspended for falsely claiming former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that, as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to contact the Russians.
According to CNN, Goldston could be heard on an audio recording of the call fuming: “I don't think ever in my career have I felt more rage and disappointment and frustration that I felt through this weekend and through the last half of Friday."
“If it isn't obvious to everyone in this news division, we have taken a huge hit and we have made the job of every single person in this news division harder as a result,” Goldston vented at his staff. “It's much, much harder. We have people in Washington who are going to bear the brunt of this today and in the days forward. Very, very, very, very unfortunate. Really, really angry about it.”
Goldston was also upset that Ross managed to somehow get his false report on the air with no prior approval. “We just went on air with that information. We hadn't approved doing that. And the thing that just kills me about this is all we had to do was wait. We had to wait a few minutes.” He noted that all they had to do was wait a few minutes for the charges against Flynn to be made public and they would have seen that Ross’s information was “just plain wrong.”
He also apparently ripped his staff over how abysmal their response was. “The thing that compounded our mistake is that not only did we make a mistake, if we had then corrected ourselves right away, again -- we wouldn't be in this position,” he exclaimed. “And then it took us seven hours, eight hours to get our story straight. This is not acceptable. It's not acceptable. And we will all pay the price for a long time.”
CNN also spoke with numerous anonymous sources inside ABC News who painted the picture that everyone was treating Ross like he had the plague:
"No one wants to work with him," said one ABC News employee.
"The future doesn't seem bright for him," added another.
ABC News employees have also told CNN that there is great internal embarrassment over the blunder.
"It's a major embarrassment," one ABC News employee said.
"It makes me cringe," echoed another. "This is not what any networks needs when people are so quick to say 'fake news' to you. It makes me sick to my stomach."
In an appearance during Sunday’s Reliable Sources on CNN, Darcy told Stelter he spoke with ABC employees who were uncertain if Ross would continue to work for ABC News past his four-week suspension. With how angry Goldston appeared to be, it’s possible that the rumors could prove to be true.
If Ross was ultimately fired, it would be long overdue. In July of 2012, Ross falsely claimedthe shooter responsible for the Aurora, Colorado massacre was a member of the Tea Party. And long before that, in 2001, Ross falsely linked Saddam Hussein to the anthrax attacks.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 Over the weekend, it was discovered that Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a veteran FBI agent, named Peter Strzok, off his team for sending text messages that were disparaging of President Trump. But on Monday, new information broke about just who the agent actually was. Apparently, he was responsible for toning down former FBI Director Comey’s language when he was announced he would not recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton in her e-mail investigation. That interesting tidbit was blacked out of the reports in the evening broadcasts of CBS and NBC.
During their morning broadcasts, both CBS This Morning and NBC’s Today mentioned Strzok’s removal from the investigation team. But come Monday evening, NBC Nightly Newsfailed to mention the new development when reporting on the agent’s removal, while CBS Evening News didn’t mention the Special Counsel at all.
ABC’s World News Tonight was the only one in the Big Three to report the new details of Strzok’s past. “ABC News has also now confirmed from a Source that Strzok played a key role in how then FBI Director James Comey announced the results of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation,” reported Anchor David Muir after recalling what broke over the weekend.
Surprisingly, Muir actually went on to explain what Strzok did to lessen the political/legal blow to Clinton: “Recommending that Comey describe Clinton's actions as, quote, “extremely careless,” rather than, quote, ‘grossly negligent.’ Now, the significance is that it’s a felony to mishandle classified information, quote, ‘in a grossly negligent way.’”
Later in the night, after the networks were off the air, The Daily Caller uncovered even more damning information about Strzok. “The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state’s private email server,” reported Chuck Ross.
As Ross wrote, the differences in the results of Strzok’s Trump investigation versus his Clinton one were shocking. “The starkly different outcomes from Strzok’s interviews — a felony charge against Flynn and a free pass to Mills and Abedin — are sure to raise questions from Republicans about double-standards in the FBI’s two most prominent political investigations,” he explained.
Since neither CBS nor NBC wanted to report Strzok’s positive involvement the Clinton e-mail investigation, it will be interesting to see if they decide to report on The Daily Caller’s findings.
ABC being the one to actually mention Strzok's connection to the Clinton e-mail investigation was indeed surprising. But it might have something to do with the fact that ABC News President James Goldston ripped into his staff Monday morning for their abysmal reporting on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s plea deal.
Transcript below:
ABC
World News Tonight
December 4, 2017
6:36:22 PM Eastern [39 seconds]
DAVID MUIR: And one more development tonight involving the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller's team tonight. A veteran FBI agent who was removed from the Russia investigation. We learned that Robert Mueller removed Peter Strzok back in August after learning that Strzok had sent potentially anti-Trump text messages. ABC News has also now confirmed from a Source that Strzok played a key role in how then FBI Director James Comey announced the results of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. Recommending that Comey describe Clinton's actions as, quote, “extremely careless,” rather than, quote, “grossly negligent.” Now, the significance is that it’s a felony to mishandle classified information, quote, “in a grossly negligent way.”
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
During the political panel discussion on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, moderator Chuck Todd fretted that the removal of an FBI agent from Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation for sending anti-Trump text messages might be “bordering into thought police territory.” The group proceeded to worry that the President would use the incident to discredit the probe.
“Horrible 48 hours for the President with this investigation, but he was handed one helpful PR moment here....an FBI agent was just removed from Bob Mueller’s team for anti-Trump texts,” Todd proclaimed. He revealed his concern over the move: “I have to say, part of me thought, wait a minute, are we bordering into thought police territory?”
Todd again sneered about how it would help Trump: “But it does give the President a PR tool here and to at least throw to his supporters saying, ‘Aha! Bias in the Mueller probe.’”
Moments later, political analyst Mike Murphy complained that the President would rightfully point out the removal:
The President is a genius at taking something like this and blowing it up to titanic size. We are going to hear so much about this now. It will eclipse the investigation for a while, at least on the conservative side of the media.
Liberal Princeton University Professor Eddia Glaude Jr. chimed in with his own whining: “And it’s always designed to really undermine the value – the truth value of the press, the truth value of the investigation, to leave doubt once the conclusions are drawn.”
Speaking of undermining “the truth value of the press,” the Sunday show completely ignored reporter Brian Ross being suspended from ABC News for getting a scoop about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s guilty plea completely wrong. Monday’s network morning shows all avoided reporting on their colleague’s temporary dismissal.
In these two instances, federal authorities and the liberal media discredited themselves, regardless of Trump’s remarks.
On Monday’s Today show, reporter Hallie Jackson immediately attempted to discredit the President’s reaction by citing an Obama administration official blasting Trump:
Now, it’s another tweet from the President raising eyebrows, after reports an FBI agent was taken off Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation for reportedly sending anti-Trump texts, President Trump tweeting, “The agency’s reputation is in Tatters – worst in History!” That’s not sitting well with Eric Holder, the former attorney general, firing back, “You’ll find integrity and honesty at FBI headquarters and not at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now.”
Meanwhile, ABC’s Good Morning America skipped the news completely.
The biased conversation on Meet the Press was brought to viewers by Merrill Lynch, Neutrogena, and FedEx.
Here is a full transcript of the December 3 segment:
11:01 AM ET
(...)
 CHUCK TODD: Horrible 48 hours for the President with this investigation, but he was handed one helpful PR moment here. Let me throw up these headlines, an FBI agent was just removed from Bob Mueller’s team for anti-Trump texts. Now, when you read the details of this, Danielle, I have to say, part of me thought, wait a minute, are we bordering into thought police territory? Number one. But we can set that aside here. But it does give the President a PR tool here and to at least throw to his supporters saying, “Aha! Bias in the Mueller probe.”
DANIELLE PLETKA: He just tweeted about it this morning.
TODD: Shocking! I’m shocked.
PLETKA: I know, shocking to see, maybe his lawyer tweeted that too. I’m not sure who tweeted it, but you know. No, look, this is, though, a problem because you want the perception, just as Dianne Feinstein was extraordinarily careful to preserve that impartiality, “I’m waiting for the evidence.” When you have an investigator who obviously has an axe to grind against the president, you want to get rid of him. Mueller is being very careful and I applaud him for doing that.
TODD: I was just going to say, if he made one error here, Doris, it was it seems as if they just didn’t let everybody know immediately that they had done this, that they discovered it.
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Right, after the fact.
TODD: It was after the fact that the public learned.
MIKE MURPHY: The President is a genius at taking something like this and blowing it up to titanic size.
TODD: Yeah.
MURPHY: We are going to hear so much about this now. It will eclipse the investigation for a while, at least on the conservative side of the media.
EDDIE GLAUDE JR. [PRINCETON UNIVERSITY]: And it’s always designed to really undermine the value – the truth value of the press, the truth value of the investigation, to leave doubt once the conclusions are drawn.
(...)
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
In its desperation to avoid any discussion of a potential major legislative win for the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, Monday’s NBC Today devoted an astonishing 15 times more coverage to the morning show’s fired co-host Billy Bush attacking President Trump in a New York Times op/ed than to the GOP tax bill working its way through Congress.
“Now on to that scathing on op/ed from Billy Bush in this morning’s New York Times. In it, he takes the President to task over their notorious exchange during a taping for Access Hollywood,” co-host Hoda Kotb hailed as she introduced 4 minutes 49 seconds of coverage on the rehashing of the year-old controversy (Another full minute of coverage came at the top of the 8 a.m. ET hour, making the show total 5 minutes 49 seconds).
Correspondent Kristen Welker followed by eagerly reminding viewers: “Everyone remembers that now-infamous Access Hollywood tape that nearly cost then-candidate Trump the election.” Noting anonymous sources claiming that “in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has reportedly been questioning the authenticity of the tape,” Welker touted how “Billy Bush, who lost his job over the controversy, is speaking out.” She proclaimed: “His message, the tape is real and the President’s denials have hit a raw nerve.”
Continuing the segment, Welker announced: “This morning, an old controversy now back in the spotlight.”
Despite Bush’s abrupt dismissal from the network in 2016, she happily promoted her former colleague’s attacks on the President:
Bush now noting that the President is “indulging in some revisionist history,” adding that “seven other guys” heard the conversation and “Every single one of us assumed we were listening to a crass stand-up act. He was performing. Surely, we thought. None of this was real. We now know better.”
Bush, who was fired from NBC News following the tape’s release, goes on to say he believes several of the women who have accused the President of harassment. Saying the behavior Trump describes on the Access Hollywood tape is similar to their accusations...
Immediately following the report, Savannah Guthrie grilled former Trump campaign aides on the matter:
Now, David [Bossie], you were the deputy campaign manager. You actually showed him the Access Hollywood tape on your iPad when it came out. Is it real?
And did the President acknowledge that it was real then? We know he did on tape, but even in those moments?
...but if he is, Corey [Lewandowski], talking to people in his inside circle and suggesting, “You know, maybe that tape’s fake,” I mean, if that’s true, why would he do that? You know him better than anybody?
Lewandowski pointed out: “...I’ve spoken to the President dozens, hundreds of times, thousands in my life. I’ve never heard him say that. So where are these sources where the fake news wants to report this? You know, anonymous sources...”
While Today was busy showing sudden respect for someone the network fired just one year earlier, the broadcast only managed to offer a pathetic 23 seconds updating viewers on the status of the Republican tax bill – which just passed a significant legislative hurdle after being approved by the Senate over the weekend.
In sharp contrast, the coverage on ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday was the exact inverse of Today’s. Only 32 seconds was given to discussing Bush’s anti-Trump tirade, while 5 minutes 30 seconds was provided on the GOP tax bill. Though the tone of the tax coverage was decidedly negative, with political analyst Matthew Dowd actually arguing that passage of the bill would be bad for Republicans and a “great benefit” to Democrats.
CBS This Morning devoted a remarkable 14 minutes 39 seconds to reporting and analysis of the tax plan, though like ABC, it had a pessimistic view. Only 27 seconds was given to Bush’s rant against Trump.
The biased coverage on the Today show was brought to viewers by Capital One, Panera Bread, and Ford.
Here are excerpts of the December 4 reporting:
7:05 AM ET
 HODA KOTB: Now on to that scathing on op/ed from Billy Bush in this morning’s New York Times. In it, he takes the President to task over their notorious exchange during a taping for Access Hollywood. NBC’s White House correspondent, Kristen Welker, has that story. Kristen, good morning.
KRISTEN WELKER: Hoda, good morning to you. Everyone remembers that now-infamous Access Hollywood tape that nearly cost then-candidate Trump the election. Well, in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has reportedly been questioning the authenticity of the tape. Now overnight, Billy Bush, who lost his job over the controversy, is speaking out. His message, the tape is real and the President’s denials have hit a raw nerve.
This morning, an old controversy now back in the spotlight. Former TV host, Billy Bush, taking aim at the President overnight, over that now-infamous Access Hollywood tape.
DONALD TRUMP: Grab ‘em by the *****
WELKER: Bush, writing in an op-ed for The New York Times, “Yes, Donald Trump, you said that. It comes after a report in The New York Times last week that “In recent days, (President Trump) has continued to seed doubt about his appearance on the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape,” telling people close to him, including a Republican senator, the tape may have been fake and that he wants to investigate the recording.
TRUMP: I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.
WELKER: An issue the President apologized for right after the tape was released. Bush now noting that the President is “indulging in some revisionist history,” adding that “seven other guys” heard the conversation and “Every single one of us assumed we were listening to a crass stand-up act. He was performing. Surely, we thought. None of this was real. We now know better.”
Bush, who was fired from NBC News following the tape’s release, goes on to say he believes several of the women who have accused the President of harassment. Saying the behavior Trump describes on the Access Hollywood tape is similar to their accusations, writing about one accuser, “Her story makes the whole ‘Better use some tic tacs and just start kissing them’ routine real. I believe her.”
(...)
WELKER: For his part, Bush says today is about a reckoning and a real wakening, and calls last year an odyssey, one which he hopes to never face again.
(...)
7:08 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Let me start with this Access Hollywood tape. Because as you know, it’s been reported that the President recently has started to suggest to people in his inner circle, and including one senator, that maybe that tape wasn’t real. Maybe he really didn’t say those things. Now, David, you were the deputy campaign manager. You actually showed him the Access Hollywood tape on your iPad when it came out. Is it real?
DAVID BOSSIE: Well, I said yesterday on Meet the Press that it is, of course, real.
GUTHRIE: And did the President acknowledge that it was real then? We know he did on tape, but even in those moments?
BOSSIE: The President made a tape where he acknowledged having the locker room talk. And I think that that’s where it ends with him. It was all about the talk. And now I understand Billy Bush is coming out, that’s all well and good. We wouldn’t be talking about this today – I don’t think – if all these high-profile folks in the last month hadn’t had a problem. And I think this is behind the President and we really want to move forward.
GUTHRIE: Perhaps it was, but if he is, Corey, talking to people in his inside circle and suggesting, “You know, maybe that tape’s fake,” I mean, if that’s true, why would he do that? You know him better than anybody?
COREY LEWANDOWSKI: I know him very, very well.
GUTHRIE: Do you believe he's doubting it?
LEWANDOWSKI: I don’t – look, I’ve spoken to the President dozens, hundreds of times, thousands in my life. I’ve never heard him say that. So where are these sources where the fake news wants to report this? You know, anonymous sources inside is what the President is saying. What we’ve seen time and time again is people want to make up a story that isn’t true.
(...)
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
Why does the tax bill promoted by the President and Republicans have low polling support? Maybe because journalists are constantly trashing it. On CBS This Morning, Monday, analyst Jill Schlesinger declared, “I think it's becoming clear that [the tax bill is] very much tilted toward corporations and the wealthiest Americans.”
She then argued that the legislation wasn’t justified: “I think when Americans hear that corporations, which have seen great profitability over the last seven years, stock markets at all-time highs, it's hard to really understand in your belly why did corporations need this tax cut?”
Not discussed was one possible reason: The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Yet, Schlesinger sneered, “But an actual gift to corporations at a moment where we are right now, second longest bull market in the history of the United States economy, it's hard to reconcile that.”
Baffled co-host Bianna Golodryga wondered:
Tax cuts historically are very going to say tax cuts historically are very popular with both Republicans and Democrats. This one is at 30 percent approval. Why do you think so many Americans disapprove of this tax cut? Tax bill?
 With all the hammering from journalists, it’s not hard to understand.
Later, co-host Gayle King talked to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and spun the Republicans as uncaring for repealing the individual mandate:
GAYLE KING: Now, the Senate bill would repeal the ObamaCare individual mandate. That’s something that the CBO says would leave 13 million Americans without insurance. Is the President okay with that?
MICK MULVANEY: Think about that for a second. So what the CBO is telling you as soon as the government tells you you don't have to buy something, you're not going to. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, do we want to have some law on the books? This goes back to underlying issue of health care and the fact that Democrats have pitched health care as a tax. So it's entirely appropriate to be dealing with that now. Should the government really be telling you, forcing you to buy something you don't want to buy? We're absolutely comfortable with that.
A transcript of the earlier segment is below:
 CBS This Morning 12/4/17 7:12:52 to 7:16:12
NORAH O’DONNELL: CBS news business analyst Jill Schlesinger is here to try and break down what the tax bill could mean for families. Jill, good morning. This is so important. Let's talk about how it affects individual families first.
JILL SCHLESINGER: So, it’s really important to understand this is a bill that's very nuanced. So, it matters not just who you are and how much money you do earn. But how do you earn that money? Do you have a pass-through organization or do you live in a state where you're losing your state and local tax deduction? Do you have a mortgage? How much? Do you want to? So, it's a very strange bill that in the packet when we've done tax reform and deductions, and unfortunately, I remember 30 years ago, it was a much clearer, “This is a winner. this is a loser.” This is going to take a long time to really understand who wins and who loses.
 O’DONNELL: Okay, the big differences in the two plans.
SCHLESINGER: Okay, well, the big differences are going down. We know that the tax brackets are very important. So in the House plan they have four tax brackets. They maintain that top bracket at 39.6 The Senate plan — I’m sorry, the House plan goes to four brackets and the Senate maintains seven brackets, but the top bracket goes down. Mortgage interest deduction. House plans say you can only deduct up to half a million of mortgage interest. The Senate plan says no. “We're going to leave it at a million.” What we really know is the big, huge change in the tax code is around corporations. In corporations, they both are slashing the corporate rate. It goes from 35 to 20 percent.
GAYLE KING: Go ahead.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Tax cuts historically are very going to say tax cuts historically are very popular with both Republicans and Democrats. This one is at 30 percent approval. Why do you think so many Americans disapprove of this tax cut? Tax bill?
SCHLESINGER: I think it's becoming clear that it's very much tilted toward corporations and the wealthiest Americans. You know, if you're upper middle class, you could actually be a loser in this bill and that's very important to put out there and if you're very poor you would be a loser. And I think when Americans hear that corporations, which have seen great profitability over the last seven years, stock markets at all-time highs, it's hard to really understand in your belly why did corporations need this tax cut? Tax reform is one thing. Making a tax code better, simpler, plainer. But an actual gift to corporations at a moment where we are right now, second longest bull market in the history of the United States economy, it's hard to reconcile that.
GAYLE KING: It still seems very confusing. Even the people who pass it are still trying to read it and figure out exactly what they passed it.
Who really wins and who loses? I heard you talking about two losing situations. Who are the losers?
SCHLESINGER: If you're tenth of one percent of the earner, you're a huge winner. Because we are going to get rid of the state taxation. The tax brackets are going to go down. I think those people win. I think corporations, huge winners. Pass-through organizations. That means you have a big law firm. There’s 200 partners. They have all their money flow through as a pass through. That is going to be a big winners. Whether those folks who are winners who take the money that they save and recycle it into the economy and boost the economy substantially, I think that is a huge question yet to be answered. A lot of academics say they don't believe this is a long-term growth incentive.
O’DONNELL: Randall Stevens the head of AT&T has promises more jobs. You have them on the record saying they'll have more jobs.
SCHLESINGER: So, we'll see where they come up with the jobs.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 President Trump scored a big victory on Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the administration to enforce the third iteration of the travel ban until they could hear the case sometime in early 2018. The ban singled out counties with highly questionable or completely absent vetting processes for those looking to travel abroad. And the development was omitted from CBS Evening News’ first broadcast with anchor Jeff Glor as the new full-time anchor.
While CBS was the only network in the Big Three to skip the Trump victory, both ABC and NBC gave it minimal time.
On ABC’s World News Tonight, Anchor David Muir dedicated a mere news brief lasting 23 seconds. And he used most of the time huffing about it. “Next, to the Supreme Court tonight clearing the way President Trump's travel ban, even as it is being challenged in federal courts,” he said. “The ruling allows the administration to fully enforce the ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.”
Muir capped off the brief by touting how the travel ban was still in relative legal limbo: “This week, the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit will hear arguments challenging the ban's legality. After they decide, the case will return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.” And as he delivered the news brief images of protested at airports shown on the screen.
NBC Nightly News didn’t do much better with a 52-seconds long mention of their own. Reporting from outside the Supreme Court, Justice Correspondent Pete Williams noted:
Lester, this means that overseas family members of people in the U.S. who were exempt from the travel ban are now subject to it. This latest version announced in September applies mainly to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In response to challenges, lower courts said it could not be applied against people who have family members here, but tonight the court has lifted that exemption.
While Muir tried to make it seem as though the travel ban had a rocky future, Williams explained that the justice opinion breakdown showed it could possibly pass legal muster. “Only two justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, so this could be a sign that the latest version of the travel ban will survive a Supreme Court challenge when it gets here early next year, Lester,” he said.
The national evening newscasts of both of the country's leading Spanish-language television networks covered the story, with Telemundo dedicating 32 seconds to the topic, while Univision covered it with a 25-second brief.
Transcript below:
ABC
World News Tonight
December 4, 2017
6:42:11 PM Eastern
DAVID MUIR: Next, to the Supreme Court tonight clearing the way President Trump's travel ban, even as it is being challenged in federal courts. The ruling allows the administration to fully enforce the ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries. This week, the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit will hear arguments challenging the ban's legality. After they decide, the case will return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
...
 NBC Nightly News December 4, 2017 7:06:25 PM Eastern
LESTER HOLT: There's late word of a victory at the Supreme Court for the Trump White House. The court allowing the administration to enforce the latest version of its travel ban while challenges to it move forward. NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams is outside the supreme court and has details. Pete, good evening.
PETE WILLIAMS: Lester, this means that overseas family members of people in the U.S. who were exempt from the travel ban are now subject to it. This latest version announced in September applies mainly to travelers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In response to challenges, lower courts said it could not be applied against people who have family members here, but tonight the court has lifted that exemption. Only two justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, so this could be a sign that the latest version of the travel ban will survive a Supreme Court challenge when it gets here early next year, Lester.
HOLT: Pete Williams at the supreme court, thank you.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Late Sunday afternoon on MSNBC, Yale School of Medicine forensic psychologist Bandy Lee seemed to hint at the need for the overthrow of Presidents Trump, proclaiming that he’s so mentally unstable that “[w]e must act soon” or risk him turning violent with catastrophic consequences for all of us.
Host Yasmin Vossoughian introduced Lee as both the co-author of a book warning about Trump’s mental state and “an opinion piece in The New York Times this week where you say that the President was showing what you call, ‘a pattern of decompensation.’”
Vossoughian admitted that Lee’s language was “pretty strong,” adding another quote from Lee’s Times piece about the President “increasingly losing touch with reality.”
Speaking very softly, Lee tacitly argued for Trump’s removal from office:
Well, what we're seeing is what is happening is serious, it is dangerous and we must act soon. Much of what we as mental health professionals predicted in the book seven months ago is coming true. What we are now saying is that things will get worse and get worse more rapidly.
Yikes. Whether Lee realizes it or not, but calling for Trump’s removal won’t win over anyone who’s not already firmly entrenched in The Resistance. In fact, such talk would only cause most Trump supporters or even occasional Trump skeptics to steer clear of this viewpoint.
Vossoughian pushed back, wondering if “it's fair to question the sort of competency and the mental health of the sitting President of the United States,” but Lee replied that she and her fellow lefties “wouldn't be speaking out if it were very serious in terms of the manifestations.”
“What we're seeing is someone mentally falling apart. This is what we mean when someone is coming unglued or unhinged. With stress, they will be less able to tell apart what is real from what is unreal, become more bizarre and, in the case of Mr. Trump, will likely become violent,” Lee continued.
She concluded by opining that Trump “will have thoughts and reasoning that will be hard for us to follow because he is pulled more by his internal processes, what's going on in his head.”
To his credit, CNBC’s John Harwood tried to put the brakes on the hysteria, correctly pointing out “that words don't mean that much to the President from one moment to the other”and “[w]hat he says at any given moment may be completely at odds with what he says subsequently and remember, there's a long history of this.”
“This is somebody who used to call up reporters under an assumed name and talk about himself and tell the reporter from People magazine that a beautiful model had dumped Mick Jagger for Donald Trump....How you judge between somebody who is deliberately saying things that are untrue for the purpose of misleading followers versus has somehow persuaded himself that some of these things are true, that's very difficult for a layman like me who’s not a doctor to tell,” Harwood added.
Here’s the relevant transcript from December 3's MSNBC Live:
MSNBC Live
December 3, 2017
4:50 p.m. Eastern
YASMIN VOSSOUGHIAN: Bandy, you wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times this week where you say that the President was showing what you call, “a pattern of decompensation” and I’m quoting your exact words, “increasing loss of touch with reality.” That’s pretty — that's some pretty strong words there. What did you mean by that?
 BANDY LEE: Well, what we're seeing is what is happening is serious, it is dangerous and we must act soon. Much of what we as mental health professionals predicted in the book seven months ago is coming true. What we are now saying is that things will get worse and get worse more rapidly.
VOSSOUGHIAN: But do you think it's fair to question the sort of competency and the mental health of the sitting President of the United States?
LEE: We wouldn't be speaking out if it were very serious in terms of the manifestations.
VOSSOUGHIAN: What was the impetus to speak out then? Why did you feel the need to speak out?
LEE: What we're seeing is someone mentally falling apart. This is what we mean when someone is coming unglued or unhinged. With stress, they will be less able to tell apart what is real from what is unreal, become more bizarre and, in the case of Mr. Trump, will likely become violent. He will have thoughts and reasoning that will be hard for us to follow because he is pulled more by his internal processes, what's going on in his head, be they fantasies, conspiracy theories or imaginary threats than what is going on in the real world.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Harwood, I want to get you on this and I’m calling you Harwood because, obviously, we have two Johns on the panel this afternoon. How do I make sense of what to take of the President's word and what sort of stream of consciousness, not only the American public but those overseas who use the President's word to shape their own policy? They are seeing these tweets go out one after the other as we sort of been covering them in the media and they see them first hand as we do.
JOHN HARWOOD: Well, we’ve seen —
VOSSOUGHIAN: And there's really no filter to that.
HARWOOD: That's right, but we've seen for a long time that words don't mean that much to the President from one moment to the other. What he says at any given moment may be completely at odds with what he says subsequently and remember, there's a long history of this. This is somebody who used to call up reporters under an assumed name and talk about himself and tell the reporter from People magazine that a beautiful model had dumped Mick Jagger for Donald Trump. I mean, this kind of stuff is very bizarre. The most bizarre of all the things we've been talking about , I think, is the President's claim that the voice on the Access Hollywood tape was not him since as you noted, Yasmin, he acknowledged, apologized for that, and it's perfectly obvious that it's his voice. How you judge between somebody who is deliberately saying things that are untrue for the purpose of misleading followers versus has somehow persuaded himself that some of these things are true, that's very difficult for a layman like me who’s not a doctor to tell, but what we do know is that the President, in many circumstances, pretty constantly says things that simply aren't true.
VOSSOUGHIAN: Is there sort of like this veering away from the truth, Harwood, and I’m sticking with you on this one, also enabling others governments along with the U.S. government and people in the U.S. to treat the press unfairly, especially with this whole idea of fake news?
HARWOOD: I suppose we will hear that term and we have heard that term, fake news, that the President has popularized, but I don't know, Yasmin. I have a little bit more confidence in human nature and the fact that people want to know what's true and want to act on what's true. Yes, there's partisanship and polarization and people can misuse information, but I'm a little bit more confident that, ultimately, the truth wins out.
VOSSOUGHIAN: I mean, we were once seen this country as upholding the freedom of press, of being the pinnacle of upholding the freedom of press and it seems as we’re no longer holding —
HARWOOD: Well, but I think the country does. What the President — one of the great things about this country is, the government doesn't define the country and so, if the United States favors freedom of the press, that will be true whether or not any given president does.
VOSSOUGHIAN: It's a fantastic point.
|
|
By Geoffrey Dickens
 Listening to liberal journalists denounce Roy Moore, Al Franken and John Conyers, you’d think the media had zero tolerance for politicians with a known history of sexual misconduct. But the plain truth is the media have been complicit in normalizing, even justifying, such behavior for decades – if it helped protect the cause of big government liberalism.
Exhibit A: Ted Kennedy. For decades, the Massachusetts Senator and known sexual harasser was celebrated by the media, even though tales of his womanizing ways were well known by reporters who covered Capitol Hill. From his leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in a car in Chappaquiddick, to his propositioning of a 16-year-old girl from his limo to the sexual assault of a Washington D.C. waitress, liberal reporters excused his misdeeds because the “Liberal Lion of the Senate” was advancing leftist legislation.
The Boston Globe’s Charles Pierce actually fantasized that if Kopechne had lived that Kennedy’s “tireless work as a legislator....would have brought comfort to her in her old age.” Time’s Lance Morrow penned this tribute: “He became one of the great lawmakers of the century, a Senate leader whose liberal mark upon American government has been prominent and permanent. The tabloid version does not do him justice.” ABC’s The View co-host Joy Behar host probably best summed up the media’s mentality when she admitted “It’s policy. Teddy Kennedy. Remember Chappaquiddick?....A girl drowns and he abandons her and she drowned, and women still voted for Teddy Kennedy. Why? Because he voted for women’s rights.”
In April, 2016 GQ reprinted an old 1990 article “Ted Kennedy on the Rocks” that recounted, in an adoring way, all of Kennedy’s womanizing. The sub-headline of the reprint read: “FROM THE GQ ARCHIVES: The once-strong voice of liberalism is now slurred, but the bibulous Kennedy boyo remains the life of the party.”
Here are just some of the lowlights, featured in the article:
In a downtown office, a former congressional page tells of her surprise meeting with Kennedy three years ago. She was 16 then. It was evening and she and her 16-year-old page, an attractive blonde, were walking down the Capitol steps on their way home from work when Kennedy’s limo pulled up and the senator opened the door. In the backseat stood a bottle of wine on ice. Leaning his graying head out the door, the senator popped the question: Would one of the girls care to join him for dinner? No. How about the other? ...  In December 1985, just before he announced he would run for president in 1988, Kennedy allegedly manhandled a pretty young woman employed as a Brasserie waitress. The woman, Carla Gaviglio, declined to be quoted in this article, but says the following account, a similar version of which first appeared in Penthouse last year, is full and accurate: ... As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table. She lands on her back, scattering crystal, plates and cutlery and the lit candles. Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on [fellow Democratic Senator Chris] Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd’s lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair. As he is doing this, Loh enters the room. She and Gaviglio both scream, drawing one or two dishwashers. Startled, Kennedy leaps up. He laughs. Bruised, shaken and angry over what she considered a sexual assault, Gaviglio runs from the room.
These revelations pale in comparison to the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer and others who have lost their jobs due to misconduct. Yet these widely-known stories did not deter the media from celebrating Kennedy as a liberal hero who deserved re-election after re-election.
The following are the worst examples of hypocritical praise from the liberal press for Kennedy as culled from the MRC’s archives:
Kennedy Conundrum: If Mary Jo Hadn’t Died, She Would’ve Loved Him
“If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.”
— Charles Pierce in a January 5, 2003 Boston Globe Magazine article. Kopechne drowned while trapped in Kennedy’s submerged car off Chappaquiddick Island in July 1969, an accident Kennedy did not report for several hours.
“Mary Jo wasn’t a right-wing talking point or a negative campaign slogan....We don’t know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she’d have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history....[One wonders what] Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted’s death, and what she’d have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded. Who knows – maybe she’d feel it was worth it.”
— Discover magazine deputy web editor Melissa Lafsky, who formerly worked on the New York Times’s Freakonomics blog, writing at the Huffington Post, August 27, 2009.
Ted’s Liberal Voting Record = Lifetime Pass for Chappaquiddick
 Anchor Mary Alice Williams: “It was 20 years ago tonight that a car swerved off a small bridge on Chappadquiddick Island off Massachusetts’ coast...NBC’s Andrea Mitchell tonight on how Ted Kennedy is winning respect 20 years later.” Andrea Mitchell: “In reforming the immigration law last week, Ted Kennedy was updating the rules he first legislated in 1965. It’s that kind of nuts-and-bolts work that has earned the respect of colleagues – even conservatives.” — NBC Nightly News, July 18, 1989.
“Yet his achievements as a Senator have towered over his time, changing the lives of far more Americans than remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne....He deserves recognition not just as the leading Senator of his time but also as one of the greats in the history of this singular institution, wise in its workings, especially its demand that a Senator be more than partisan to accomplish much.”
— Excerpt in the August 2, 1999 Time from a then-forthcoming biography of Ted Kennedy by New York Times reporter Adam Clymer.
“People have to understand, it’s policy. Teddy Kennedy. Remember Chappaquiddick?....A girl drowns and he abandons her and she drowned, and women still voted for Teddy Kennedy. Why? Because he voted for women’s rights. That’s why. That’s the bottom line of it in my opinion.”
— ABC’s Joy Behar on The View, January 5, 2016.
“Once, long ago, he was the Prince Hal of American politics: high-spirited, youthful, heedless. He never evolved, like Prince Hal, into the ideal king. Instead he did something that was in its way just as impressive. He became one of the great lawmakers of the century, a Senate leader whose liberal mark upon American government has been prominent and permanent. The tabloid version does not do him justice. The public that knows Kennedy by his misadventures alone may vastly underrate him.”
— Time’s Lance Morrow writing about liberal Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, April 29, 1991.
“He’ll be remembered as a truly Shakespearean figure: tragic, flawed; who in the end achieved redemption through greatness – both in his personal life and in his professional life, and did enormous things for millions and millions of people.”
— NPR’s Nina Totenberg on Inside Washington, August 28, 2009.
“He is the last of the liberal lions, roaring on behalf of the voiceless....The 30-year-old with nothing but a name to run on turned 70 as one of the premier legislators of the 20th century....He has championed civil rights, pushed for improved education and better health care. His name is on hundreds, probably thousands, of bills....He is an undiluted, undeterrable liberal, but a closet pragmatist. He prefers half a loaf to none, something to nothing, results over rhetoric.”
— CNN’s Candy Crowley on the February 22, 2002 edition of Inside Politics, noting the 70th birthday of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy.
Ted “Touched” a Lot of Things
Co-host Diane Sawyer: “We are going to begin something. Can you see this going by? It’s a scroll, and it’s going to continue. We will not finish it before we take a break, because it’s Senator Kennedy’s legacy. Forty-six years of service. Three hundred bills passed....”
Reporter John Berman: “If you’re in a wheelchair, that ramp is thanks to Ted Kennedy. If you earn the minimum wage, you make more because of Ted Kennedy....If you’re a child, he worked to make sure you have health insurance....”
George Stephanopoulos: “Boy, not a corner of American life that Ted Kennedy didn’t touch....”
— ABC’s Good Morning America, August 27, 2009.
Ted Kennedy, the Perfect Family Man?
“The lion in the Senate will be remembered for his 46 years in public office, but at his core, Senator Kennedy liked to be known as a family man....[On screen: “Family Man, Remembering Ted Kennedy”] From the tragic and very public deaths of his brothers, to the normal family triumphs and celebration, to the unexpected, Ted Kennedy didn’t forget that family came first."
— Ann Curry on NBC’s Today, August 28, 2009.
Destined for Mt Rushmore
“The best reaction shots were those of Ted Kennedy, whose stature seems to grow right along with his nose year after year after year. Kennedy has now reached a grand moment in the life of a senator; he looks like Hollywood itself cast him in the role. Seriously....Kennedy looked great, like he was ready to take his place next to Jefferson on Mount Rushmore. He gives off the kind of venerable vibes that some of us got from an Everett Dirksen way back when.”
— Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales in a January 21, 2004 Style section review of the State of the Union address.
That’s Not Rain, It’s God Crying for Teddy
“The heavens were weeping for Teddy Kennedy today.”
— Correspondent Andrea Mitchell noting the rainy weather in Boston on the day of Ted Kennedy’s funeral, August 29, 2009 Nightly News.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment