Yesterday, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that General Flynn had been told to contact the Russians by candidate Donald Trump during the campaign. When the news broke, the stock market plummeted by a huge amount and fools like Joy Behar on The View ran to tell it to viewers as if her fondest wish had come true. The news was spread all across the world. This was it; Trump had colluded with the Russians.
A few hours went by and ABC "clarified " and then "corrected" the report. It wasn't candidate Trump who gave the direction. It was President-elect Trump who told his staff to speak to the Russians about better coordinating the efforts to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. So it was AFTER the election was long over. It was nothing even remotely related to collusion. The report wasn't just wrong, it was spectacularly wrong. Tens of thousands of people lost a great deal of money in the market panic that followed the erroneous report.
Today, ABC suspended Ross for 4 weeks without pay. He is now the fall guy for ABC's incompetence.
But tell me, wasn't there and editor involved with the story? Wasn't there someone at the network who checked the validity of what was being said? How do those people get off pushing phony lies about President Trump while having Ross take the fall?
Of course, the usual suspects in the media have run to tell us that the contact was illegal when President-elect Trump ordered it last December. That too is a phony story. On December 2, 2016, the State Department was asked if it had any problem with the Trump transition people contacting the Russian government or the Russian ambassador or any other country. The clear answer was NO. The Obama State Department had no problem at all with direct contact between the Trump people and the Russians. They said it was a normal part of the transition.
It's worth noting that someone asked former DNI James Clapper about the Obama Administration giving its blessing to contacts between the Trump transition people and the Russians. Clapper (who lied under oath to Congress) said that the idea was preposterous. Now, however, someone has come forward with video of the state department spokesperson saying just that. Will Clapper be suspended for four weeks without pay? I doubt it; I think he's unemployed.
A few hours went by and ABC "clarified " and then "corrected" the report. It wasn't candidate Trump who gave the direction. It was President-elect Trump who told his staff to speak to the Russians about better coordinating the efforts to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. So it was AFTER the election was long over. It was nothing even remotely related to collusion. The report wasn't just wrong, it was spectacularly wrong. Tens of thousands of people lost a great deal of money in the market panic that followed the erroneous report.
Today, ABC suspended Ross for 4 weeks without pay. He is now the fall guy for ABC's incompetence.
But tell me, wasn't there and editor involved with the story? Wasn't there someone at the network who checked the validity of what was being said? How do those people get off pushing phony lies about President Trump while having Ross take the fall?
Of course, the usual suspects in the media have run to tell us that the contact was illegal when President-elect Trump ordered it last December. That too is a phony story. On December 2, 2016, the State Department was asked if it had any problem with the Trump transition people contacting the Russian government or the Russian ambassador or any other country. The clear answer was NO. The Obama State Department had no problem at all with direct contact between the Trump people and the Russians. They said it was a normal part of the transition.
It's worth noting that someone asked former DNI James Clapper about the Obama Administration giving its blessing to contacts between the Trump transition people and the Russians. Clapper (who lied under oath to Congress) said that the idea was preposterous. Now, however, someone has come forward with video of the state department spokesperson saying just that. Will Clapper be suspended for four weeks without pay? I doubt it; I think he's unemployed.
No comments:
Post a Comment