| |
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 If you thought CNN’s open anti-Trump hysteria couldn’t get any wilder, then buckle up, because at the end of Reliable Sources on Sunday host Brian Stelter led a segment dedicated to press crackdowns by dictators and how the President’s “fake news” call-outs were helping them.
Stelter began the segment with a monologue about the case of “award-winning Mexican journalist, Emilio Gutierrez, and his son,” who was staying in the U.S. illegally and were now detained and facing deportation. “Emilio was tried, he sought refugee status. He was denied and his appeal failed. So he fled to the U.S. in 2008 after threats on his life because of his reporting on Mexican military corruption,” Stelter explained, noting that the reporter feared for his life if he was forced to return.
Admitting that Gutierrez’s case was “unique,” Stelter juxtaposed it other counties whose murderous leaders lock up reporters for exposing corruption. “In fact, there are 262 journalists jailed worldwide with the bulk of them in three counties: Turkey, China, and Egypt,” he recalled.
When the panel was brought on, Stelter first talked with Gutierrez’s lawyer, Eduardo Beckett who went on a rant slamming the Trump administration for “promoting tyranny” around the globe. “The denial of his asylum is basically sending a signal to the world that the United States does not want to promote democracy and freedom of expression,” he smeared.
The next guest to assert that Trump was aiding foreign dictators was Courtney Radsch, the advocacy director for the Committee to Protect Journalists. Noting Stelter’s earlier statistic on imprisoned journalists in Turkey, China, and Egypt, Radsch lamented how “sadly, these are also three of the countries that President Trump chose to meet with their leaders at the beginning of his term and as far as we know didn't raise this.” And she blamed the use of the “fake news” tag for the increase in arrests.
“Meaning these dictatorships are using the term “fake news” as a slur in order to attack journalists,” Stelter asked in shock. “Absolutely,” Radsch claimed, to Stelter’s “God” exclamation.
Radsch continued by noting how conditions for journalists had gotten worse over the last two years, and according to her, it was all because of Trump. “So, what this is saying is that journalists are in a very perilous position and it’s made worse by the President of the United States deciding to pillory the news industry and target individual journalists. And this is having an impact,” she lambasted.
“We can see the fake news, you know, rhetoric being used by leaders around the world to legitimize a crackdown on the press from everywhere from Russia to Egypt, even Poland, and Hungary,” Radsch added, making seem like Trump was leading a worldwide effort.
It has become an essential narrative for CNN to claim that Trump has threatened the lives of journalists at home and abroad. During the summer, Stelter and a panel of other anti-Trump media flacks suggested that Trump was sending a death threat to the cable network in the form of a juvenile tweet featuring a gif from a WWE match he was a part of.
CNN’s unbridled hysteria was paid for by Garlique, Omaha Steaks, Volvo, Whole Foods, Stein Mart, Red Lobster, and Planters.
Transcript below:
CNN
Reliable Sources
December 17, 2017
11:54:51 AM Eastern
BRIAN STELTER: Detained and facing deportation, that's the reality facing this award-winning Mexican journalist, Emilio Gutierrez, and his son, as well. Emilio was tried, he sought refugee status. He was denied and his appeal failed. So he fled to the U.S. in 2008 after threats on his life because of his reporting on Mexican military corruption.Now, he fears those threats will be carried out if he's forced to return. Emilio’s case is just one of many. In fact, there are 262 journalists jailed worldwide with the bulk of them in three counties: Turkey, China, and Egypt. Now, his case is unique. Let's start with that. His attorney joins me now. Eduardo Beckett, he’s the attorney for Emilio. Also with me, Courtney Radsch the advocacy director at the Committee to Protect Journalists. So, let's start with this cases in Texas involving Emilio.
 (…)
STELTER: So the U.S. says he's here illegally and has to go home. Is it that simple?
EDUARDO BECKETT: He entered legally back in 2008. And he basically turned himself in to ask for asylum. He has openly been criticizing Mexican government security forces in particular, the military. He's right now being treated like a criminal. We call it the criminalization of asylum. The denial of his asylum is basically sending a signal to the world that the United States does not want to promote democracy and freedom of expression. And if they deny him again, then what the U.S. is actually promoting-- and not the U.S. in particular but I would say the Department of Justice under Jeff Sessions, or under the Trump administration, I would say that they're promoting tyranny and that's the message that they're sending, right?That we don't care about free expression and I believe that we have to protect our journalists here at home and abroad because that is fundamental to the promotion of democracy and freedom all over the world. And that's something that the U.S. has always fought for.
(…)
COURTNEY RADSCH: But if we look at imprisonment, more than half of the 262 journalists imprisoned around the world are in Turkey, China, and Egypt. Sadly, these are also three of the countries that President Trump chose to meet with their leaders at the beginning of his term and as far as we know didn't raise this. We know that journalists are generally being jailed on anti-state charges which mean they're doing journalism but it's equated with supporting terrorism and we're also seeing that the whole false news issue has landed more than twice as many journalists in jail as last year.
 STELTER: Meaning this dictatorships are using the term “fake news” as a slur in order to attack journalists?
RADSCH: Absolutely. We're seeing—
STELTER: God.
RADSCH: -- it's being used to imprison and attack journalists, but to kick them out of the country as in the case of Cambodia, kicking out Radio Free Asia, in terms of delegitimizing journalists. So, this year there are 21 journalists behind jail on false news charges. Usually, this means they were reporting on something that the government didn't like or didn't agree with or would prefer to remain silent.
STELTER: A very disturbing situation. The take way I found from your report is that it's getting worse, it’s not getting better. We're at the same numbers as we were this time last year.
RADSCH: It is getting worse. This is the worst year on record since we began keeping records in the early 1990s, and last year was the worst year before this. So, what this is saying is that journalists are in a very perilous position and it’s made worse by the President of the United States deciding to pillory the news industry and target individual journalists. And this is having an impact. We can see the fake news, you know, rhetoric being used by leaders around the world to legitimize a crackdown on the press from everywhere from Russia to Egypt, even Poland, and Hungary.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 After making completely false claims about the GOP tax reform bill on ABC’s Good Morning America earlier on Sunday, Clinton lackey George Stephanopoulos spent most of This Week leading the discussion tearing it down.
After spending a couple minutes smearing the bill in his opening monologue, Stephanopoulos interviewed Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn where one of his first questions involved allegations GOP leaders bought off Tennessee Senator Bob Corker with a real estate provision:
There's a lot more scrutiny of the bill, which was just released on Friday in these final hours. Including an article in the International Business Times, that came out yesterday showing that a last-minute tax break, which was not included in the House or Senate provision, could bring millions of dollars to President Trump, and other Republicans, who get a lot of money from the real estate income through LLCs.
Instead of asking Cornyn to explain why the provision was there and what it was for, Stephanopoulos read a statement from Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen who called the GOP “unconscionable.” “Will you remove that provision,” the ABC host demanded to know. That’s not to mention how he thinks a bill released five days before a vote was somehow released “in these final hours.”
“Meanwhile, the Democrats are also warning this is going to trigger a mandatory cut in many government programs, including a $25 billion cut in Medicare,” Stephanopoulos said to Cornyn a short time later. He then highlighted Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA-D) saying Dems would play games with the program. “She's essentially saying, you won't get any Democratic votes to waive those cut. So, $25 billion in Medicare cuts are coming. Can you prevent the cuts on your own?”
Stephanopoulos then spoke with two economists: Former Chair of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, Glenn Hubbard who supported the bill, and Paul Krugman from The New York Times who opposed the bill and whose economic predictions were about as accurate as an astrology chart.
Krugman actually argued against the bill because it was “un-leveling the playing field” to the benefit of small businesses. “What this is doing is, it tremendously privileging people who own businesses of a certain kind. Who are really basically just workers but happen to have the right kind of business that earns enough money,” he smeared.
“It’s a crazy thing,” Krugman added, before getting one more punch before the commercial break. “I think this will be a wave of outrageous tax avoidance. And that there will be mass demands for people do something because this is a nightmare bill.”
In the last 15 minutes of the program, ABC’s make-believe Republican Matthew Dowd was mouthing off about how the GOP was passing a bill that was only for the wealth and asserted that “to me when the Republicans do this, they have abdicated any responsibility on fiscal conservativism. They can’t run on that anymore.”
Former Bush Political Affairs Director Sara Fagen noted most economic analysis of the bill “fails to give any credit for growth in the economy and higher tax revenues off a broader base and people making more money.” But Dowd did not want the facts known, so he talked over her, shouting: “There is no evidence at that that will happen! In history. None.” As Fagen began to counter him, he falsely declared that “there was no growth after the Reagan 1986 tax bill. There was no growth.”
This wasn’t the first time Dowd has tried to rewrite history. On the same program a few weeks prior, he claimed Republicans “empowered” Bill Clinton’s sexually predatory behavior by confirming Justice Clarence Thomas.
With all of the Republicans in the Senate and nearly all in the House supporting the reconciled tax reform proposal, passage and a presidential signature were all but assured. So it’s no wonder ABC was in crisis mode ahead of the pivotal vote on Tuesday that would have get a major win on the board.
Relevant portions of the transcript below:
ABC
This Week
December 17, 2017
9:05:29 AM Eastern
 (…)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you [Senator John Cornyn] think you have the votes right now. There's a lot more scrutiny of the bill, which was just released on Friday in these final hours. Including an article in the International Business Times, that came out yesterday showing that a last-minute tax break, which was not included in the House or Senate provision, could bring millions of dollars to President Trump, and other Republicans, who get a lot of money from the real estate income through LLCs. Our next guest, Senator Chris Van Hollen, has responded to that saying: “Slipping in a last-minute provision that could give more of a windfall to people like President Trump and some Republicans in Congress is unconscionable. It’s not too late for my colleagues to do the right thing.” Will you remove that provision?
(…)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Meanwhile, the Democrats are also warning this is going to trigger a mandatory cut in many government programs, including a $25 billion cut in Medicare. Leader Pelosi has written a letter to the Senate and House leaders of the Republican party, saying: “Given the lack of bipartisanship to date in your effort to provide massive tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class while adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit. It will be your responsibility to deal with the consequences.” She's essentially saying, you won't get any Democratic votes to waive those cut. So, $25 billion in Medicare cuts are coming. Can you prevent the cuts on your own?
(…)
9:33:16 AM Eastern
PAUL KRUGMAN: By the way, this is un-leveling the playing field. Right now, anybody that wants to turn themselves into a C-corporation and pay normal corporate taxes can do that. What this is doing is, it tremendously privileging people who own businesses of a certain kind. Who are really basically just workers but happen to have the right kind of business that earns enough money. It's a crazy thing. It's creating a nightmare of loopholes. Possible exploitable things -- possible ways for certain people – there’s even a specific provision says that architects and engineers get a special tax break that other service providers don't get. So, this is insane tax policy.
(…)
KRUGMAN: I think this will be a wave of outrageous tax avoidance. And that there will be mass demands for people do something because this is a nightmare bill.
 (…)
9:46:09 AM Eastern
MATTHEW DOWD: Besides the substantive serious problems, I think, with this, it doesn't simplify—it’s only going to primarily benefit the wealthy and all of that … To me, when the Republicans do this, they have abdicated any responsibility on fiscal conservativism. They can’t run on that anymore. After they pass a bill that raises the debt by $1.5 trillion and doesn't help the middle-class they no longer can run as the fiscal conservatives.
SARA FAGEN: In all this conversation though of the deficit, it fails to give any credit for growth in the economy and higher tax revenues off a broader base and people making more money. And so, I think that's just –
DOWD: There is no evidence at that that will happen! In history. None.
FAGEN: That’s not true.
DOWD: Yeah, it is.
FAGEN: There is evidence of it.
DOWD: There was no growth after the Reagan 1986 tax bill. There was no growth.
FAGEN: More people went to work and more people had higher wages.
(…)
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 Listening to the concerns of the average American, Congressional Republicans announced on Thursday that they planned to keep popular tax deductions for student loans and medical expenses while adding a $10,000 cap to state and local tax deductions (SALT) in their tax bill. But ABC’s prominent Clinton lackey, George Stephanopoulos either didn’t get the memo or was out to mislead the public during Sunday’s Good Morning Americabecause he claimed the GOP had eliminated SALT altogether.
“Okay. A great Christmas gift to middle-income people. Is that true,” GMA co-host Paula Faris asked Stephanopoulos in a skeptical tone that mocked President Trump’s description of the tax bill.
“It depends on where you live and how many kids you have. Broadly, generally, most middle-class people in most of the country will get some kind of a tax cut, with a couple of caveats,” Stephanopoulos asserted. “It could go down, or you could even see your taxes raised if you live in a high tax state like New York, New Jersey where the deduction for state and local taxes has been eliminated.”
That was the only tax discussion they had on GMA that morning. There was no mention of the popular deductions being kept in the bill nor the fact that every GOP senator was in support of the bill, as of Saturday, after the child tax credit was increased. With every Republican senator on board, it meant the bill would have generally smooth sailing for the first vote of the reconciled bill on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, on NBC’s Sunday Today, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd dispelled Stephanopoulos’ claim about SALT. Todd wasn’t addressing him directly but did acknowledge that “essentially they took every criticism, every unpopular deduction that they got rid of, they seemed to restore, whether it was on tuitions, or health care, or even on state and local taxes. They didn't restore all of it but they restored some of it.”
But NBC had their own liberal bias going on. When describing the how GOP senators were now supporting the bill, host Willie Geist claimed that only “some of those Republicans who were sitting on the fence and holding out on the bill are now on board.” With every GOP senator saying they will vote to pass the bill, it meant that they could pass it even if Senators McCain and Cochran were unavailable due to medical treatment according to the National Review.
Todd also showed off some grade-A liberal hypocrisy by suddenly caring about the county’s deficit (emphasis his):
But what I can't figure out is where they paid for it. You know, they still have to stay within this $1.5 trillion deficit expansion limit that they've built in. So, the only thing that would derail this is if the math doesn't work as far as the congressional scorekeepers are concerned. And we find that out on Tuesday or Wednesday.
But according to the bill’s authors, it wouldn’t add to the deficit when economic growth was taken into account. Most economic analyses don’t view the economic impact in that dynamic way, say proponents of the GOP bill.
ABC’s lies were paid for by Geico, Stelara, PetSmart, NicoDerm CQ, IHOP, Macy’s, Tresiba, Honda, and Nissan.
Transcripts below:
ABC
Good Morning America
December 17, 2017
8:07:37 AM Eastern
(…)
PAULA FARIS: Okay. A great Christmas gift to middle-income people. Is that true? What kind of political impact do you think this bill will have?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It depends on where you live and how many kids you have. Broadly, generally, most middle-class people in most of the country will get some kind of a tax cut, with a couple of caveats. It could go down, or you could even see your taxes raised if you live in a high tax state like New York, New Jersey where the deduction for state and local taxes has been eliminated. Number two, these personal income tax reductions actually expire after 2025. So people's taxes will go up over time. Once those tax cuts expire. Even though the corporate tax cuts are permanent.
(…)
...
 NBC Sunday TonightDecember 17, 2017 8:07:21 AM Eastern
(…)
WILLIE GEIST: Let’s start with taxes. So, it looks like the vote comes on Tuesday. Corker on board, Rubio on board, Susan Collins on board. Some of those Republicans who were sitting on the fence and holding out on the bill are now on board. Is there any chance this bill does not become law before Christmas?
CHUCK TODD: I think the only thing that I'm curious to wait and see is what happens when the congressional budget scorekeepers finish with this. Willie, I was impressed with the political response that the Republicans in this conference committee did with this tax bill. Essentially they took every criticism, every unpopular deduction that they got rid of, they seemed to restore, whether it was on tuitions, or health care, or even on state and local taxes. They didn't restore all of it but they restored some of it.
But what I can't figure out is where they paid for it. You know, they still have to stay within this $1.5 trillion deficit expansion limit that they've built in. So, the only thing that would derail this is if the math doesn't work as far as the congressional scorekeepers are concerned. And we find that out on Tuesday or Wednesday.
GEIST: And they're pushing right up against it right now. $1.45 trillion as it stands right now.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Early Friday afternoon, CNN host Wolf Blitzer and rabble-rouser/senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta sought to throw cold water on any questions surrounding the Mueller probe into possible Trump-Russia collusion, denouncing concerns “as a right-wing narrative” promulgated by “conservative media” to influence President Trump.
Following a clip of the President attacking the FBI’s institutional credibility, Blitzer lobbed a softball to Acosta about whether Trump’s “comments help fuel what is seen as a right-wing narrative that the independent investigation right now — Robert Mueller's investigation is biased.”
Acosta began by stating his obvious agreement, pronouncing that Trump’s tweets about the FBI are “an echo of what it being said on conservative media about this Muller investigation.”
“You have a lot of people in conservative media these days attacking the Mueller investigation, pointing to that FBI agent who was reassigned whose texts, I guess, denigrating the president and came to light. The President was obviously seizing on that when he was leaving the White House earlier this morning,” Acosta added.
He continued on with his latest sermonette to the CNN faithful:
But Wolf, it's interesting to note the President was making the comments as he was heading down to a FBI national academy down in Quantico. At that ceremony, he praised federal and local law enforcement officials but it was here at the White House where the president was saying it's a shame what happened to the FBI and that a lot of people are very angry about what's happening at the FBI. It appears the President is essentially echoing what he is hearing in conservative media.
What’s interesting was that the pair seemed to give zero thought to the possibility that this matter should be thoroughly examined in both the interest of transparency and the benefit of the investigation.
One prevailing thought in the media has been if the President has nothing to hide, then he should be more cooperative with the Special Counsel. Using that logic, the same should be expected of the FBI when it comes to snuffing out claims of political bias. Most reasonable people should and do believe that the FBI (and CIA) are among the country's most cherished institutions. Simple questions don't harm that credibility.
The other tidbit is how the media have defended the Mueller probe to the ends of the earth, but did the opposite with the Ken Starr investigation into the Clintons. My colleague Rich Noyes published a fascinating story that showcased the press’s viciousness roughly two decades ago when the subject of a special counsel investigation was a Democratic President. To find that story, go here.
Here’s the relevant transcript from CNN’s Wolf on December 15:
CNN’s Wolf
December 15, 2017
1:17 p.m. Eastern
WOLF BLITZER: Jim, the President also insisted that there’s been no evidence as he always said of collusion with Russia between his campaign and the Russians. Do his comments help fuel what is seen as a right-wing narrative that the independent investigation right now — Robert Mueller's investigation is biased?
 JIM ACOSTA: I think it certainly does, Wolf, and I also think it also is an echo of what it being said on conservative media about this Muller investigation. You have a lot of people in conservative media these days attacking the Mueller investigation, pointing to that FBI agent who was reassigned whose texts, I guess, denigrating the president and came to light. The President was obviously seizing on that when he was leaving the White House earlier this morning. But Wolf, it's interesting to note the President was making the comments as he was heading down to a FBI national academy down in Quantico. At that ceremony, he praised federal and local law enforcement officials but it was here at the White House where the president was saying it's a shame what happened to the FBI and that a lot of people are very angry about what's happening at the FBI. It appears the President is essentially echoing what he is hearing in conservative media. Now, at the same time, another thing the President said on the South Lawn of the White House is that we’ll see when it comes to whether he would pardon Michael Flynn, who pled guilty a couple weeks ago to lying to federal investigators in the Russia investigation. He said we’ll see whether Michael Flynn might get pardoned. I asked Ty Cobb, who is a White House lawyer over here about that and here's what he said to me. He is essentially saying no, that is not under consideration at this point, but he gave us a brief statement if we put it up on screen and he said that is not being considered over here at the white house. Of course, that leaves open the possibility that it might be considered down the road, that it might be considered by the President’s attorneys outside of the White House, but it is a bit of a contradiction when you have the White House lawyer saying no, that is not under consideration and, yet, the President of the United States as he was leaving the White House said it is something that he isn’t closing the door on. He didn’t rule it out. He said we’ll see. There you see it right there. “There is no consideration being given to [a pardon for] Michael Flynn.” So, Wolf, once again, as the President is calling this investigation a hoax and so on, there — there seems to be conflicting signals as to how the White House is handling the President’s legal defense in this investigation, Wolf.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
Burning the midnight oil on Saturday night, The Daily Caller’s media reporter Amber Athey uncovered the latest case of sexual misbehavior in the news media as she explained how a former employee of Hardball host Chris Matthews was given “a separation-related payment...after the woman complained about sexual harassment.”
Athey was not only able to confirm through an MSNBC spokesperson that this settlement took place, but she also found two sources who confided “that Matthews paid $40,000 to settle with an assistant producer” for Hardball in 1999.
That portion of the story, however, was disputed by MSNBC as it claimed that they gave the woman less than that total amount in a severance package.
The complaint came after the woman told CNBC executives (where the show aired from 1997 to 1999) that the liberal pundit made, according to Athey, “inappropriate comments and jokes about her while in the company of others.”
Aside from the payment, Athey explained:
The MSNBC spokesman said that they thoroughly reviewed the situation at the time and that Matthews received a formal reprimand. Based on people who were involved in matter, the network concluded that the comments were inappropriate and juvenile but were not intended to be taken as propositions.
The woman received separation-related compensation when she left MSNBC and has gone on to work in a number of high-profile media positions. MSNBC declined to comment on whether the employee left because of Matthews or whether this was the only claim in Matthews’ history at the company.
For those wondering how this story never came to light, it’s debatable as to why that NBC wanted to keep this under wraps and the answers could be numerous (image, non-disclosure agreements, settlement conditions, etc.).
The past few months have shown that no industry has been left unaffected by the tidal wave of sexual misconduct accusations and national conversation about the universal need to feel safe in the workplace.
Despite a plethora of admirable and meticulous stories by the media on this issue, media figures such as CBS/PBS host Charlie Rose, MSNBC analyst Harold Ford Jr., MSNBC/NBC analyst Mark Halperin, NBC’s Matt Lauer, NPR’s Michael Oreskes, The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, New York Times correspondent Glenn Thrush, and PBS’s Tavis Smiley are just a few of the men who have lost their jobs or been suspended following disturbing allegations of misbehavior.
With four of those examples being (at one time or another) on NBC’s payroll, it’s safe to say that NBC and its image have taken a hit. The alleged attempts to cover-up Ronan Farrow’s investigation into Harvey Weinstein served as perhaps a warning sign that the network (along with so many others) had problems when it came to acknowledging and/or confronting sexual harassment within their own newsrooms.
As any possible Matthews updates develop, be sure to stay with NewsBusters. If any changes rise to the surface, watch out for future items featuring flashbacks into the vast Media Research Center archives. Certainly, it’ll be a stretch to say that this will fetch some (if any) coverage on Sunday's major broadcast network shows or CNN’s Reliable Sources (though any coverage is welcome). Either way, stay tuned.
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
Hillary Clinton’s seemingly endless book tour stopped by the Ellen DeGeneres show on Friday. Even for the liberal entertainer, the questions were over the top. DeGeneres turned to the woman who lost the 2016 election to wonder if Donald Trump can “last” four years as president. She also wistfully highlighted their 2016 plan to do a show from the Clinton White House.
DeGeneres derided, “You're just thinking, if this was a movie, people would go, ‘There is no way.’ And it just continues to go on. Do you think that he is really going to last four years?” Maybe Clinton might not be the most objective person to answer such a question?
DeGeneres began the interview by lamenting, “Seems like the last time I saw you, you said we were going to do the show in the White House but we were all excited about that.” Clinton assured, “We would have, too.”
 Whether they wanted it or not, the host told her audience that they would all be getting the book: “The name of the book is What Happened. Everybody in the audience, you are getting a copy.”
But rest assured, DeGeneres wanted everyone to know she didn’t think ALL Republicans are evil:
I don't believe that you can group a whole bunch of people together. There are some Republicans that are really good, good people and have good intentions. So it is the party, the Republican Party. This is not what it was. This is not what it should be. And so, I do not want to bash Republicans. I do not want to bash anybody. We just want — I think it is important for me to say. Because I obviously wanted you to be president. And I believed in you. And I have strong opinions. But I want to say that I don't judge everybody by this President.
Though Clinton’s questions from actual journalists weren’t much tougher, DeGeneres in 2016 acted more like a star struck fan than a host. She even asked to be Clinton’s vice president. In 2017, she called for tolerance, but said she would never have the President on her program.
A partial transcript of the questions is below:
 Ellen12/15/17 3:25pm ET
ELLEN DEGENERES: Our next guest was the first woman to run for President of the United States of America [sic]. Despite winning the popular vote, she lost the election. She writes all about it in her new book What Happened. Please welcome Hillary Rodham Clinton.
...
DEGENERES: Seems like the last time I saw you, you said we were going to do the show in the White House but we were all excited about that.
HILLARY CLINTON: We would have, too.
...
DEGENERES: You talk about it in your book, but let's talk about it. You were here three weeks before the election. You were confident.
CLINTON: I was.
DEGENERES: I was confident. A lot of people were confident. It seems like this was a for sure thing, I mean, what a shock. What was going through your mind when you saw was happening?
...
DEGENERES: You're just thinking, if this was a movie, people would go, “There is no way.” And it just continues to go on. Do you think that he is really going to last four years?
...
CLINTON: I can’t answer that. I can’t predict it.
...
 DEGENERES: I don't believe that you can group a whole bunch of people together. There are some Republicans that are really good, good people and have good intentions. So it is the party, the Republican Party. This is not what it was. This is not what it should be. And so, I do not want to bash Republicans. I do not want to bash anybody. We just want — I think it is important for me to say. Because I obviously wanted you to be president. And I believed in you. And I have strong opinions. But I want to say that I don't judge everybody by this President.
...
DEGENERES: The name of the book is What Happened. Everybody in the audience, you are getting a copy. We will be right back.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment