CNN has crossed a line. Think about this. They basically hunted down a person for making a gif file, for engaging in political satire, and threatened him unless he, straightened up, you might say. Ann Althouse weighs in
This is Andrew Kaczynski at CNN, who doesn’t seem to have any idea how bad this is:
CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change….
So, when did the media’s job become bullying those engaging in free speech, satirists, or anyone that offends the Brownshirts at CNN? I am sure Stalin would approve of CNN targeting someone for exercising a God-given liberty! Stalin did not believe in liberty, neither does CNN apparently. Who else might find themselves on CNN’s radar?
Remember, this is not about media bias, or fake news. This is a weaponized media going after an American citizen for engaging in commentary/satire/parody. Think long and hard about that. How can any CNN reporter or anchor not tender their resignation over these deplorable tactics? This is thuggery, period! Even liberal outlets are stunned
“I can’t emphasize how bad this is on CNN’s part,” wrote German Lopez, a reporter for liberal website Vox. “This is basically ‘don’t post stuff we don’t like or we’ll dox you.’ Extremely unethical.”
“That’s essentially blackmail. That’s CNN stating that it will out the guy if he dares to defy their political perspective or offends them sufficiently,” wrote conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. “The whole story is frightening, and obviously an attempt to both nail Trump and discourage people from smacking CNN.”
So, I suppose we all should do what we think best. And being intimidated? Not me! Here ya go CNN!
I think the readers can determine which is which here
Exit question. Is there anyone who uses more big words without actually saying anything than Michael Eric Dyson? And Symone Sanders? Is she anything else but an overt racist? Watch
1. CNN’s format was awful. The entire effort was intended to instigate fights between and among the candidates. They wanted a brawl. The early part of the debate was the worst – right out of the box, piling on Donald Trump. Like Trump or not, this is a Republican debate. As I’ve been saying for a while, when will the RNC stop turning over the GOP debates to the media? I find these debate formats demeaning of the candidates and not particularly informative.
2. Twice now Ted Cruz was treated as a third-tier candidate. He received very little time and was rarely called on. Moreover, when he tried to speak as a”skeptic” during the discussion about global warming – where Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie apparently accepted the supposed”science” of global warming – Jake Tapper rudely cut him off. When Cruz had about 60 uninterrupted seconds or so to address the Iran deal debacle, he was superb. Same with the Supreme Court. There appears to be a pattern in these debate to marginalize him. Unfortunately, given the nature of these debates, he needs to become a bit more aggressive in pushing his way into the discussions.
3. Tapper repeatedly sought a fight between Jeb Bush and Trump, which is why they wound up using more time than most of the other candidates. Did we learn anything from most of it? No.
4. Going in, I believe the establishment media were poised to declare Carly Fiorina a victor over Trump and most of the field as she has become one of the establishment favorites. The indications were everywhere. In fact, most of the same voices and writers who opposed Trump and before him Cruz are singing her praises today. They are no longer concerned about lack of governing background of an outsider or flip-flopping, etc. I remember in the 2010 GOP Senate primary race in California she staked out the moderate Republican position against State Representative Chuck DeVore. She didn’t sound like a traditional, Reagan conservative back then. And her response to the birthright citizenship questions were wrong and jumbled. In fact, Trump has a superior understanding of the issue. Rand Paul reluctantly had to agreed. And in that Senate campaign, Fiorina mocked Barbara Boxer’s looks (understandable), a fact ignored by Tapper last night. Why? The audio is public. Finally, her record as a corporate CEO is mixed. But do not expect it to be scrutinized by her cheerleaders in and out of the media. But the Democrats won’t ignore it. Let me be clear: I have nothing against Fiorina, but there’s reason to be at least a little skeptical.
See this: https://www.conservativereview.com/Commentary/2015/08/Does-Carly-Have-the-Record-to-Throw-These-Punches
(You can search the record further yourself, do not expect the media to do it for you.)
5. I thought Chris Christie did pretty well. He’s a good debater. But the problem is that his record belies much of his more recent conservative rhetoric and positions. Mike Huckabee always scores some solid points but, again, his record is shoddy (e.g., he supported virtually every GOP establishment candidate in recent Senate primary races). I remain perplexed as to why John Kasich belatedly jumped into the race. He has become more liberal than GOP primary voters and there were already a number of establishment candidates in the race. I like Ben Carson very much; however, his position on the minimum wage was not particularly strong. And his delivery is, sadly, problematic. There’s a middle ground between loudly provocative and speaking in such quiet tones. That said, I personally like him very much. Rand Paul did much better this time around in staking out his more libertarian views. But, again, his attack-dog tactics against Trump don’t help him. Scott Walker is a solid conservative with a record to prove it. He did better in this debate but he doesn’t shine in these debate formats. Jeb Bush did better in this debate as well, but he is still under-performing. In fact, many in the establishment media who were touting Bush are today cheerleaders for Fiorina. Had Bush scored well they’d be touting him. Finally, Trump came under an early withering assault, which was the game plan of both CNN and several of the other candidates. For the most part, he withstood the attacks. I may be in the minority but I thought he bested Fiorina on their back-and-forth about business acumen and birthright citizenship. In any event, he did no harm.
More tonight on my radio program.
H/T Right Scoop
Wednesday’s GOP debate appears to be the highest-rated event in CNN’s history, according to preliminary Nielsen ratings.
The prime time debate averaged a 14.7 household rating, indicating that 1 in 7 American homes with TVs tuned in.
These are NFL-level ratings – affirming that the Donald Trump fueled Republican debate slate is one of the most popular television shows of the year.
The overnight ratings estimates are subject to adjustments. But the 14.7 rating is likely to translate to 20-plus million viewers once final viewership figures come out Thursday afternoon.
Fox’s GOP debate last month received a 16.0 preliminary rating the next morning. That number later extrapolated to 24 million live viewers. (Another 1.1 million viewers watched via DVRs.)
Fox’s debate was two hours long while CNN’s was three hours.
From a campaign’s perspective, longer might have been better, because it gave candidates more time to talk and argue. It also gave CNN more time for commercial breaks.
But the length may diminish the overall ratings a bit. That’s because the ratings are an average of minute-by-minute viewership, so if viewers didn’t stay for the whole program, the average will be lower.
Hour-by-hour ratings may illuminate this viewer behavior later in the day.
But even the overnight ratings show that these GOP debates are drawing viewers who never bothered turning on a debate before.
For comparison’s sake, CNN’s most-watched presidential primary debate before Wednesday was a Democratic debate on January 31, 2008. It had an average of 8.3 million viewers.
CNN’s most-watched program program ever was a special “Larry King Live” episode in 1993. The episode featured Al Gore and Ross Perot debating NAFTA and averaged 16.8 million viewers.
Wednesday’s debate also set a live-streaming record for the network.
At the midway point of the debate, there were 921,000 concurrent users on CNN’s live stream, easily making it the most-watched web stream of a primary debate ever.
……………we get noted idiots like Cornel West on CNN as if he has anything relevant or important to add
Cornel West couldn’t seem to answer Carol Costello‘s question about whether or not the broadcast shooting death of WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward was racially motivated.
During the Thursday morning editon of CNN Newsroom, Costello opened West’s visit by asking whether or not he believed “race [played] a factor” in the actions of Bryce Williams, real name Vester Flanagan, during his “rampage” on Wednesday. In response, West delivered one of the most verbose, convoluted and uncomfortable non-answers of the topic of race and violence ever witnessed.
Some of the more academic bits of West’s ramble include:
“The fundamental question is how do you get at this spiritual decay and this moral decadence in this society as a whole? All of us have to deal with rage. How do you filter that rage through love?”
“The problem is we live in a society where people don’t give or get enough love. They don’t give or get enough justice. They don’t give or get enough community. When you’re isolated and insulated, that rage bubbles up.”
“Justice is what love looks like in public. When you have a love deficit, you have a justice deficit. And the question becomes, how do you make things accountable? I‘m very much in favor of tight gun control.”
Good freaking grief, shut up already Cornel! You are a rambling. incoherent buffoon. Of course, I must also note that Carol Costello is not all that sharp either. I mean she actually asks IF race MIGHT have had something to do with the killing in Virginia? The guy who did the shooting said he wanted to inspire a RACE WAR! For goodness sake, how hard can it be to do the math on that one Carol Costello? Of course, to a Leftist, the idea that a Black can be racist is foreign. Only Whites can be racist right? This is what they teach in college now, which explains why so many idiots are college grads!
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department routinely failed to preserve its own emails in order to intentionally hide them from official records.
Clinton-era email use at the State Department was fraught with widespread, intentional concealment, according to an October 2014-March 2015 semiannual report to Congress filed by the State Department’s office of inspector general (OIG).
Only a fraction of the messages sent by email were stored as “record emails,” according to the report.
“The review of the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset (SMART) and Record Email found that, out of the more than 1 billion emails sent in 2011, employees created just over 61,000 official emails; and they created even fewer – 41,000 – in 2013,” the inspector general found. “OIG recommended that the Department establish policies governing usage and that system designers engage with focus groups to enhance the system’s efficiency.” (p. vii)
Clinton’s administration did nothing to teach people how to store emails and oversaw the widespread cover-up of emails that should have been kept.
“A 2009 upgrade in the Department’s system facilitated the preservation of emails as official records. However, Department employees had not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve ‘record emails,’” according to the OIG report.
“Record email usage varied widely across bureaus and missions. The Bureau of Administration needed to exercise central oversight of the use of the record email function. OIG found that some employees did not create record emails because they did not want to make the email available in searches or feared that this availability would inhibit debate about pending decisions.”
Former Secretary Clinton has turned over thumb drives and a private email server containing her emails from her tenure at the State Department. An inter-agency government task force led by the Department of Justice and the FBI is currently investigating how classified information ended up on Clinton’s server, and whether foreign agents were able to obtain any of the information on Clinton’s server.
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal should disqualify her from the Oval Office.
At least so says former CIA operative and CNN national security analyst Bob Baer, who is not known for being a political partisan.
“If this was on her server and it got into her smart phone, there’s a big problem there,” Baer said during an appearance on CNN International Saturday, noting that the sensitivity of the information reportedly found on Clinton’s private server was likely more secret than what Edward Snowden pilfered.
“Seriously, if I had sent a document like this over the open Internet I’d get fired the same day, escorted to the door and gone for good – and probably charged with mishandling classified information,” Baer said.
“If this in fact were on her hand held [phone] – was sent to her or she forwarded it in any way – I wonder whether she is capable of being president,” he added.
Pressed by the host as to whether he really thought this situation was a “deal breaker” for Clinton’s presidential candidacy, Baer said, “As a national security employee, a former one, yes.”
“I can’t tell you how bad this is,” he went on. “A lot of things get talked about, a lot of gossip, but having documents like this sent across the Internet, it could be hacked very easily and probably were hacked, is a transgression that I don’t think the president of the United States should be allowed to, you know, have committed.”
While media coverage has focused on a half-dozen of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails containing sensitive intelligence, the total number of her private emails identified by an ongoing State Department review as having contained classified data has ballooned to 60, officials told The Washington Times.
That figure is current through the end of July and is likely to grow as officials wade through a total of 30,000 work-related emails that passed through her personal email server, officials said. The process is expected to take months.
The 60 emails are among those that have been reviewed and cleared for release under the Freedom of Information Act as part of a open-records lawsuit. Some of the emails have multiple redactions for classified information.
Among the first 60 flagged emails, nearly all contained classified secrets at the lowest level of “confidential” and one contained information at the intermediate level of “secret,” officials told the Times.
Those 60 emails do not include two emails identified in recent days by Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III as containing “top-secret” information possibly derived from Pentagon satellites, drones or intercepts, which is some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets.
State officials and the intelligence community are working to resolve questions about those and other emails with possible classified information, a process that isn’t likely to be completed until January.
That will be right around the time Mrs. Clinton is slated to face voters in the Iowa caucuses in her bid for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
As the number of suspect emails grows and the classification review continues, it is clear that predictions contained in a notification Mr. McCullough sent Congress this summer is likely to hold true: Mrs. Clinton’s personal emails likely contained hundreds of disclosures of classified information.
There is a time gap which may hold the key to Hillary’s hide-and-seek email game.
According to the Washington Post and other reporting, a Colorado server company obtained possession of Hillary’s server in 2013, transferred the data, leaving a blank server with no usable data at a storage facility in New Jersey.
Yet, in a letter filed on August 12, 2015 with the federal Court in the Judicial Watch FOIA litigation regarding Huma Abedin’s outside employment, Hillary’s lawyer, David Kendall. represented that Hillary did not ask counsel to review her emails until late 2014. [Full embed at bottom of post.] He also confirmed that the Colorado company has had possession of the original server since 2013.
* * *
David Kendall letter Clinton Emails 8-12-2015 excerpt 2
So how could Hillary’s lawyers review a server no longer in Hillary’s possession, and which had been wiped clean?
It’s worth noting that at her March 10, 2015, UN press conference, when a reporter noted that some people suggested an independent review of the server, Hillary did not say that she no longer had the original server or that it had been wiped clean.
Instead, she said “the server will remain private.”
The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private…
It is that original server that apparently has been turned over to the federal government. Plus a thumb drive, which purportedly only has work-related emails.
If the data was transferred to some other server, where is that one?
On Friday, August 14, 2015, the State Department is required to provide additional information to the Court.
Maybe that will shed some light.
But I’m not hopeful.
Six months ago, Hillary Clinton insisted that her private e-mail system contained no sensitive material, and that the federal government had no need of her server. With federal investigators trying to track down all of the records from her private e-mail server and revelations about Top Secret/compartmented material on her unauthorized system, Hillary’s public statements look like lies to a majority of those polled in the latest Fox News survey. In a poll of 1,008 registered voters, 58% say Hillary lied about the e-mails, and 54% believe she damaged national security:
A Fox News poll released Friday finds a 58 percent majority thinks Clinton “knowingly lied” when she announced in a March press conference that no emails on her private server contained classified information. A third says there is “another explanation” for internal government investigators determining secret info was in fact on Clinton’s server (33 percent).
Moreover, by a 54-37 percent margin, voters feel Clinton put our national security at risk by using a private email server.
The poll gave three options: Clinton lied, There’s another explanation, and Clinton told the truth. Only 2% overall think Hillary told the truth, a staggeringly bad number, and only 33% overall think there’s another explanation than Hillary lying. On option 3, the internals on this poll are instructive. The highest that Clinton told the truth polls in the demographics is 5% among black voters, where 63% choose another explanation. Among Democrats, the number is a whopping three percent. And among younger voters – who are presumably very familiar with e-mail – the “Hillary’s honest” option didn’t get enough responses to register.
Frankly, this question is designed to let respondents get off the hook for deciding whether Hillary lied or not. The middle option of another explanation implies incompetency – not exactly a good look for a presidential candidate – or some milder form of dishonesty. And yet, not many voters took the middle option. Self-described liberal, Democrats, and black voters all had majorities choosing the less-bad option, but almost none of them chose told the truth.
Instead, majorities in almost all other demos believe Hillary lied, even when given a softer option. Younger voters under 35 years of age were especially harsh on this judgment at 63/30/0, but the next age demo (35-54) was almost as dismissive, 61/31/2. In a rare show of consensus, those with (59/34/1) and without (58/33/2) college degrees agree on Hillary’s dishonesty. Two-thirds of independents believe she flat-out lied (67/23/2), and even a majority of women agree (51/40/2).
The responses to the question of harm to national security fall into the same pattern. This was presented as a yes/no, and 54% overall chose yes. The key demos all have yes majorities:
* Independents – 54/36
* Women – 50/40
* College degree – 53/38
* No college degree – 55/37
* 18-35YOs – 61/34
In other words, she’s rapidly approaching Richard Nixon levels of trust in, say, August 1973 or so.
A couple of other notes in the poll will have an indirect impact on Hillary, who’s going to be a continuity candidate based on her participation in the Obama administration. A recent trend toward the positive in Barack Obama’s job approval reversed itself in this poll, the first taken since the Iran deal was announced. He slid from a 46/46 in the beginning of July to 42/51, his worst showing since March. Voters want Congress to reject the Iran deal 31/58, and substantially more of them believe Iran can’t be trusted, 18/75, which is actually a slight improvement from the historical trend. With that hanging in the air, Hillary would have had trouble gaining trust from voters anyway – but the e-mail server scandal all but moots the point now.
More August headlines:
Exclusive: Hillary’s IT Contractor Did Not Have Proper Security Clearance – Daily Caller
The Countless Crimes Of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now – Sidney Powell
Tech Company Which Maintained Hillary’s Secret Server Was Sued For ‘Illegally Accessing’ Database And ‘Stealing White House Military Advisers’ Phone Numbers’ – Daily Mail
Hillary Clinton Emails Contained Signal Intelligence From Spy Satellites – Washington Times
*VIDEO* Judge Andrew Napolitano Describes Hillary Clinton’s Crimes
FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post
Judge Orders Hillary Clinton To Answer For ‘Home-Brew’ Server – Gateway Pundit
For those of you who wonder why I sometimes say “Good Freaking Grief” I give you a classic case study in Racial Obsession Syndrome Marc Lamont Hill, who is outrageously outraged that Dr. Ben Carson is not obsessed with skin color
Hill went after Dr. Carson as he added:
But what Ben Carson was saying was even a step further into racial amnesia and racial blindness. And that was that he was essentially saying that race isn’t real, that, you know, when you cut people and you operate as a doctor, you realize that the human body is one thing and race is some kind of social fiction. And the truth is, race is very real. Race may not be a biological reality, but it is a social construct. It may not effect the physical body, but it effects the body politic.
The liberal commentator concluded by vaguely complaining that Republicans “hate certain people and love” Ben Carson. Hill:
And Ben Carson, I’m sure he scored big point with Republicans, big points with the base because they want to be race deniers. They want to deny the existence of race. And when you have a black Republican who is willing to stand up and say race doesn’t matter in a certain kind of way, it will score big points. They will continue to hate certain people and love him, and that’s a problem.
See how easy it is to be a Leftist folks? No thinking involved at all. In fact, thinking is verboten by the Left. Just become outraged, talk really fast, and emote. Just call everyone who is on the Right racists. If they talk about race, call them racists, if they ignore race and see people as individuals, call them racists. If it is a Black Republican call them racial deniers (code for Uncle Toms). After all no “real” Black person would ever be a Republican, at least according to bigots like Marc Lamont Hill, who makes a nice living inciting racial divisions that hurt every American. You might think that I am off base but what would Marc Lamont Hill do for a paycheck if he ever told the truth about America being easily the most racially tolerant society in history? I mean it is hard out there for a race pimp right Marc?