Posted on

CNN Hiring Practices Called Into Question?

During the week of February 4th, many proponents of fairness in the media felt shock after seeing the most recent hire at CNN. Who was this new recruit? Josh Campbell, the FBI agent who publicly authored a  NY Times opinion piece against Trump. In response to the personnel move, Donald Trump Jr tweeted, “You would think their stable is full in the hate on Trump department. Ahh, who am I kidding? It’s CNN of course there’s more room.”

What did Trump Jr mean?

One might think that Don Jr was referring to the hosts. Perhaps Jake Tapper, a former writer for a far left publication? Maybe Chris Cuomo, the son and brother of pillars of the democratic party? Or could it be Jim Sciutto, a former Obama official, who comes with former Obama officials as sources? These three are just a taste of the issue with hosts but this is not the travesty Don was referencing.

Typical CNN Panel

Another theory would be Don Jr was referring to the stable of pundits who appear on panels. It is quite common to find entire panels of anti-Trump perspectives. Many of the experts at CNN are direct hires from the Clinton/Obama machine. ‘HIres,’ such as regulars, Gloria Borger and David Axelrod or even the contributors like Neera Tanden, John Podesta and Robby Mook or even the countless guests who easily outnumber supporters of Trump 5-1. (With the ‘1’ being self-hating republican Anna Navarro)

The true problem Don Jr saw was that CNN is boldly and irreverently hiring symbols of the resistance. The pattern is too much to ignore.

Trump Hater Unemployment At All-Time Low
  • After mounting a campaign to be President in the state of Utah, with the sole purpose of thwarting the Trump presidency, Evan McMullin was hired as  consultant at CNN.
  • When reporter April Ryan engaged in a public fight with the President and became a hero of the resistance she found herself  working at CNN a day later.
  • After the media pretended Preet Bahara was a hero for getting replaced by the Trump administration, Preet got a paycheck from CNN.
  • Once James Clapper broke tradition and called Trump a threat to democracy he found that he earned a part-time gig at CNN.

The amount of time between the acts of #resistance and the hiring is troubling. One might ask if Josh Campbell was promised a job in return for his op-ed.

The bias at CNN is quantifiable if anyone cared to look. The only remaining question is why Sally Yates did not cash in, did she have a better offer at MSNBC?

 

 

Share:
Posted on

Is the Obstruction of Justice charge as ridiculous as the collusion charge?

We will stipulate at the outset of this analysis that if Putin and Trump colluded, then Trump would be guilty of obstructing justice in addition to whatever crime “collusion” entails. However, the serious Democrats and even CNN know collusion is a fantasy so they are now betting on a Nixon-like obstruction charge sticking where collusion failed. One must note a crucial difference between Watergate and Russiagate. Nixon had an underlying crime to conceal, the break-in, whereas the Russia investigation of Trump will yield no such crime.

Working 9 to 5

We are basing the analysis herein on our assumption that Vladimir Putin does not actually have the power to pick who becomes the President of the United States. We are also assuming that Putin would not take the risk of getting caught by CIA, NSA, and FBI having open discussions where he offered to publicly leverage this imaginary power to bet on a heavy underdog in a presidential race, in exchange for… something. We will even assume that neither sitting US Senator Jeff Sessions, nor *Carter Page , nor **George Papadopoulos, engineered this fantastical plot. Furthermore, we assume the story that Donald Trump Jr took a failed meeting with a Russian claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton, was in fact a failed meeting with a Russian, claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton, and that’s all folks!

Innocent

Onward; person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. However, a President makes decisions about what to investigate all the time. A POTUS can tell the DOJ “don’t waste staff on marijuana cases instead go after hard-core drugs,” or “round-up some white-collar crimes” or give whatever instructions he thinks are important. This is not obstruction, it’s his job. So if Trump believes there was no collusion then how can he intend to obstruct justice? This is the crucial point, believing no crime occurred precludes the element of intent. Trump clearly thinks the investigation is a hoax and a witch hunt so when he tries to hurry the investigation along, is he obstructing justice or just attempting to end the hoax? Remember, his intentions matter.

When it comes to pass that Mueller declares that there was no collusion and the investigation was a wild goose chase, will we really prosecute the lone member of our government trying to stop the monumental fraud? Will we really follow one circus with another? Was P.T. Barnum the greatest showman or was it Adam Schiff and cast of CNN?

(*) who did not feel the need to bring a lawyer to his FBI hearing

(**) a man whose girlfriend was more upset people called him “coffee boy” than worried about him being hung for treason

Share:
Posted on

What Jimmy Kimmel Did Was Wrong

Jimmy Kimmel seems like a really nice guy and compared to many other people working the late night circuit, he seems to have a high degree of integrity. On May 1st, Mr. Kimmel went public with the story of his newborn son who was born with a heart defect that was surgically repaired. His son’s prognosis thankfully looks great. But during Kimmel’s emotional monologue detailing the ordeal he took a turn into politics, while trying to sound apolitical. His motives were pure but his actions were not.

…before 2014 if you were born with congenital heart disease like my son was, there was a good chance you’d never be able to get health insurance…

…if your baby is going to die and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make…

…don’t let their partisan squabbles divide us on something every decent person wants…

This sounds reasonable, but is it? Mr. Kimmel unintentionally employed an age-old trick used by seasoned politicians. This maneuver is not different from the countless times Donald Trump showcases families of people with loved-ones murdered by illegal immigrants to make his point on illegal immigration. These arguments are hard to oppose because they rely on emotion overtaking logic. We should all be wary of any issue portrayed in this way. It is rare to have a nationwide argument, with one side angelic and the other side monstrous, it’s never that simple.

These matters are more complex. There is a valid argument that the United States of America should adopt universal government-provided healthcare, but that is not the issue at hand. Obamacare does not guarantee everyone health care.

Understanding  folks

So… Jimmy created an argument where his side is  demanding all Americans receive medical care and the other side only offers care to rich people. This was not unlike how Meryl Streep argued against kicking every person, born outside America, out of the county. Both celebrities are fighting fights that are not based in reality. The two of them made up imaginary arguments in lieu of the complicated arguments we actually have.

If we keep Obamacare, premiums will rise, and more young healthy people will be unable to afford their insurance payments. Some of these young-ins will drop out of coverage while the sick remain in the insurance pool. This will lead to insurance companies profits dropping and in turn, will cause premiums to rise yet again. Then more healthy people drop coverage. And so it goes. Most experts do not deny this is where we are heading. This cycle was labeled the “death spiral,” and it is the rationale that stands against Kimmel’s Obamacare endorsement.

Protesting Works

Now, anyone can also pull on our heart-strings to explain this half of the debate.. like so; with rising premiums the family of five in Iowa, making fifty thousand dollars a year, can no longer afford insurance and when their baby gets sick and they don’t go to the doctor, their baby dies; so we must end Obamacare.

If we lived in an age where we had journalism, the public would hear both sides and form an opinion. We don’t, today, all you will hear on CNN is that Trump wants 24 million people to lose insurance so you should go join a protest. The main-stream-media  presents only one side of the issue to their audience and so did Mr. Kimmel.

So please, let’s pray for Jimmy’s baby but not ignore what problems we have in this country with our health system. We need to solve these problems and carrying anti-Trump signs does not solve them.

The full video of Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue is here.

 

Share: