Crooked Hillary last week: I didn’t know anything about the Dossier until after it was published. Crooked Hillary this week: Yep… I paid for the Dossier!
She’s only admitting it now because the money trail is being revealed and it traces back to her. The Clinton playbook… Deny, Deny, Deny and then Deny some more. When presented with evidence admit to that, and then Deny everything else.
Lock her up!
J. Tapper was a Confederate soldier. CNN must remove him.
New CNN Logo – “Anti-factual Action”
FLASHBACK: Before the “Trump-Russia” conspiracy, the DNC emails were widely reported as a LEAK and NOT a hack!!!
This shift is definitely worth noting and should be brought to the attention to all on the left regularly. Why would you want to receive your news from an organization that peddled this bull crap for over a year. Now when it suddenly fell off the face of the Earth you’re okay with it? The narrative has unfortunately stuck for some despite the lack pf Mainstream Media coverage of it anymore, and it needs to be pointed out that some news outlets are questioning if there was a hack at all now.
From CNN July 25, 2016:
What was in the DNC email leak?
Now, on the eve of the party’s convention, Wasserman Schultz is facing pressure to resign, and will have no major role on the convention stage, after Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 DNC emails that bolster Sanders’ supporters’ claims that the party favored Clinton.
One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie Sanders’ faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.
Here’s what you need to know about the DNC email leak so far:
Emails leaked from seven DNC officials
The leaks, from January 2015 to May 2016, feature Democratic staffers debating everything from how to deal with challenging media requests to coordinating the committee’s message with other powerful interests in Washington.
The emails were leaked from the accounts of seven DNC officials, Wikileaks said. CNN has not independently established the emails’ authenticity.
The emails could boost Sanders supporters’ charge that the DNC was biased toward Clinton — a position Sanders himself underscored when he endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s primary opponent in her Florida congressional race.
But Baltimore mayor and DNC Secretary Stephanie Rawlings-Blake denied any suggestion that Clinton’s camp was treated more favorably by the committee.
“My xpectation is beyond your opinion about a candidate, that you act evenly. All of the officers took a pledge of neutrality and I honored that, and I take that very seriously,” Rawlings-Blake told CNN’s Poppy Harlow. She added: “I know that the chair will hold those employees accountable if they’re found to have acted outside of that neutrality and even-handedness.”
Asked about the exchanges, Rawlings-Blake said: “Expressing an opinion about a candidate doesn’t mean that you’re in collusion, doesn’t mean that you are actively working against them. And I don’t think that that’s what it shows.”
Questioning Sanders’ faith
One email features DNC staffers appearing to ponder ways to undercut Sanders, an insurgent Democrat who had a bitter relationship with party leadership.
On May 5, a DNC employee asked colleagues to “get someone to ask his belief” in God and suggested that it could make a difference in Kentucky and West Virginia. Sanders’ name is not mentioned in the note.
“This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote.
Marshall did not respond to a request for comment.
Clinton prods DNC for intervention
In another email, an attorney for the Clinton campaign appears to advise the DNC on how to respond to a dispute between the two campaigns over how much money Clinton’s operation had raised for state parties. Sanders’ campaign charged that Clinton’s team was not handing over its fair share of its fundraising, which Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said was “laundering” and “looting.”
“My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem,” Marc E. Elias wrote. “Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over ‘rigged system,’ the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful (to) the Democratic party.”
Elias and the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.
Favoring bigger donors
Another exchange involves a discussion on whether to move Maryland ophthalmologist Sreedhar Potarazu from sitting beside President Barack Obama at a DNC event after National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan said he gave less money than Philip Munger, another donor.
“It would be nice to take care of him from the DNC side,” Kaplan wrote, referring to Munger.
Potarazu told CNN Saturday that he wants answers from top DNC officials on how they are responding to these revelations, which have surfaced days before the Democratic convention.
“I was obviously shocked to see my name in the middle of all of this because I’m just an innocent bystander,” he said.
“I’m curious to see what’s happening at the highest levels of the DNC right now,” he added. “I don’t know, but I’m sure it’s a fire drill. The timing is not good.”
Wasserman Schultz attacks Weaver
Wasserman Shultz also called Weaver a “damn liar” in May after he criticized the Nevada Democratic Party following protests among Sanders supporters who said Clinton’s backers had subverted party rules. They shouted down pro-Clinton speakers and sent threatening messages to state party Chairwoman Roberta Lange after posting her phone number and address on social media.
“The state party there has a lot of problems. They’ve run things very poorly. It has been done very undemocratically,” Weaver said on CNN in May. “And there seems to be an unwillingness on the part of the Nevada Democratic Party to bring in all of the new people that Bernie Sanders has brought into the process.”
The DNC chair responded in an email: “Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.”
And in an email quoting Weaver as saying, “I think we should go to the convention,” Wasserman Shultz wrote: “He is an ASS.”
Take it away, Maestro:
Reminder: CNN is Very Fake News!
The Mainstream Media isn’t even pretending to be objective anymore. Fox news at 52% negative and 48% positive… sounds almost balanced in their reporting. They still lean negative though.
A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of the mainstream media’s bias against Donald Trump.
Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed coverage from Trump’s first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print outlets.
It found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous administrations:
In America they analyzed CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
They also took into account the BBC, the UK’s Financial Times and the German public broadcaster ARD.
Every outlet was negative more often than positive.
Only Fox News, which features some of Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters and is often given special access to the President, even came close to positivity.
Fox was ranked 52% negative and 48% positive.
The study also divided news items across topics. On immigration, healthcare, and Russia, more than 85% of reports were negative.
On the economy, the proportion was more balanced – 54% negative to 46% positive:
The study highlighted one exception: Trump got overwhelmingly positive coverage for launching a cruise missile attack on Syria.
Around 80% of all reports were positive about that.
The picture was very different for other recent administrations. The study found that President Obama’s first 100 got positive good overall – with 59% of reports positive.
Bill Cinton and George W Bush got overall negative coverage, it found, but to a much lesser extent than Trump. Clinton’s first 100 days got 40% positivity, while Bush’s got 43%:
Trump has repeatedly claimed that his treatment by the media is unprecedented in its hostility. This study suggests that, at least in recent history, he’s right.
A Muslim woman whines: I don’t feel safe in the United States wearing a headscarf with Trump as President.
Problem solved… Go back to your own country where they’ll stone you to death for not wearing it!