CNN re­ally is ‘very fake news’

The Washington Times Daily - - POLITICS - BY JOSEPH CURL Joseph Curl has cov­ered pol­i­tics for 25 years, in­clud­ing 12 years as White House cor­re­spon­dent at The Wash­ing­ton Times. He also ran the Drudge Re­port as morn­ing ed­i­tor for four years. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail. com and on Twitt

Fact: Su­san Rice, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s na­tional se­cu­rity ad­viser, di­rected the “un­mask­ing” of NSA in­ter­cepts of Don­ald Trump’s aides and as­so­ci­ates. In other words, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion used the in­tel­li­gence com­mu­nity’s spy­ing on Mr. Trump, and Ms. Rice then de­manded that the names of those cap­tured on in­ter­cepts be given to her.

Fact: Names of some Trump aides have been leaked to the me­dia and sub­se­quently pub­lished. In one case, Michael Flynn, ap­pointed by Mr. Trump as na­tional se­cu­rity ad­viser, was forced to re­sign af­ter re­ports re­vealed he mis­led Vice Pres­i­dent Mike Pence about dis­cus­sions with the Rus­sian am­bas­sador. Other names of Trump of­fi­cials have also cir­cu­lated amid re­ports that they have con­nec­tions to the Rus­sians.

Only a fool would refuse to con­nect th­ese two dots.

En­ter CNN. Af­ter the Rice bomb­shell hit, the Clin­ton News Net­work went into hy­per­drive to dis­credit the re­ports — de­spite the fact that there is very clearly some there there.

“On this pro­gram tonight, we will not in­sult your in­tel­li­gence by pre­tend­ing” it’s le­git­i­mate, CNN host Don Lemon said on his show Mon­day night. “Nor will we aid and abet the peo­ple try­ing to mis­in­form you, the Amer­i­can peo­ple, by cre­at­ing a di­ver­sion. Not go­ing to do it.”

When morn­ing show host Chris Cuomo in­ter­viewed a Demo­cratic con­gress­man, the “jour­nal­ist” stated flatly that the bomb­shell — re­mem­ber, it’s a FACT that Rice di­rected the “un­mask­ing” of Trump of­fi­cials — was “demon­stra­bly un­true.”

The net­work’s chief na­tional se­cu­rity cor­re­spon­dent, Jim Scuitto — who was, by the way, a po­lit­i­cal ap­pointee in the Obama White House — also dis­missed the story as a noth­ing­burger. He said the Trump White House had “ginned up” the story to dis­tract from so-called dam­ag­ing re­ports.

“Again, to note by se­nior in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials who work for both Democrats and Repub­li­cans, this ap­pears to be a story, largely ginned up, partly as a dis­trac­tion from this larger in­ves­ti­ga­tion,” Mr. Scuitto said. No sur­prise, but the “jour­nal­ist” of­fered no “facts” or “ev­i­dence” for the claim.

And on Tues­day’s “New Day,” an­chor Alisyn Camerota begged Sen. John McCain of Ari­zona, CNN’s fa­vorite RINO, to dis­miss the story.

“They say that this is a con­tro­versy. It shows that she has done some­thing wildly out of the bounds of nor­malcy,” she said. “Is this busi­ness as usual for a na­tional se­cu­rity ad­viser to ask for a name to be re­vealed, an Amer­i­can name, if she wants to know more, or is this some sort of a con­tro­versy?”

(For the record, Mr. McCain didn’t play along, say­ing the re­quest “could have been po­lit­i­cally mo­ti­vated.”)

Mean­while, the three main­stream TV net­works all but passed on the story, with ABC and NBC for­get­ting to re­port the bomb­shell, and CBS ac­tu­ally de­fend­ing Ms. Rice.

“We learned more today about the pres­i­dent’s al­le­ga­tion that he and his aides were caught up in Obama-era sur­veil­lance,” CBS Evening News an­chor Scott Pel­ley said, throw­ing to re­porter Mar­garet Bren­nan.

“Ac­cord­ing to a for­mer na­tional se­cu­rity of­fi­cial, Trump as­so­ci­ates were not the sole fo­cus of Rice’s re­quest, but they may have been re­vealed when she asked to un­der­stand why they were ap­pear­ing in in­tel­li­gence re­ports,” Ms. Bren­nan said. “How­ever, Rice did not spread the in­for­ma­tion ac­cord­ing to this for­mer of­fi­cial, who in­sisted that there was noth­ing im­proper or po­lit­i­cal in­volved.”

Well, she said “nuh uh”? Good enough for me!

The net­works did cover Ms. Rice say­ing she didn’t do it, al­though she added, “I don’t have a par­tic­u­lar rec­ol­lec­tion of do­ing that more fre­quently af­ter the elec­tion.” Ah, the per­fect nonan­swer.

“The no­tion, which some peo­ple are try­ing to sug­gest, that by ask­ing for the iden­tity of the Amer­i­can per­son is the same as leak­ing it — that’s com­pletely false,” Ms. Rice said. “There is no equiv­a­lence be­tween so-called un­mask­ing and leak­ing.”

Un­less there is. Democrats clearly have a ton of in­tel­li­gence on Mr. Trump and his aides, which they’re drip­ping out in dribs and drabs. And the fact — there’s that word again — that names of the “un­masked” are leak­ing means some­one’s leak­ing them out (Cap­tain Ob­vi­ous here).

Here’s the crux: The whole Trump-Rus­sia col­lu­sion story first tossed up by Hil­lary Clin­ton is cover for the il­le­gal sur­veil­lance the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion did to help Mrs. Clin­ton in the 2016 elec­tion. Now they need cover, so they’re mak­ing it seem like the Rus­sians were bent on de­stroy­ing Amer­i­can democ­racy. Sim­ple.

You won’t hear THAT on CNN.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.