{"id":22091,"date":"2016-08-29T12:48:11","date_gmt":"2016-08-29T16:48:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=22091"},"modified":"2020-11-03T06:28:41","modified_gmt":"2020-11-03T11:28:41","slug":"cnn-belittles-ap-scoop-on-hillary-clinton","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=22091","title":{"rendered":"CNN belittles AP scoop on Hillary Clinton"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. Last week, Associated Press broke a story regarding<\/a> the apparent \u201cPay to Play\u201d scandal during Hillary Clinton\u2019s stint as Secretary of State. The story revolved around Clinton\u2019s email, and her State Department calendar.<\/p>\n

\"hillary4sale\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The calendar showed that a large number of \u201cvisitors\u201d to Clinton also happened to be very large donors to the Clinton Slush Fund<\/i><\/span> Foundation. The Clinton campaign denied that anything untoward was going on, like selling her office for bribes, but that was to be expected.<\/p>\n

\"something-smells-fishy-and-it-certainly-isnt-fish\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Many news agencies subscribed to AP and ran the story. Two that didn\u2019t were CNN, (The Clinton News Network) and The New York Slime<\/i><\/span> Times. Yesterday, CNN decided to go after the Associated Press for daring to actually do real reporting. Here are some of the details from Fox News<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Days after The Associated Press reported on how big donors to the Clinton Foundation got face time with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CNN took the wire service to task for daring to publish the bombshell. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"CNN\"<\/a><\/p>\n

On the news network\u2019s \u201cReliable Sources\u201d show on Sunday, host Brian Stelter suggested it wasn\u2019t a story worthy of publication, and accused AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll of running with the story only to justify a six-year investigation. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cAnd there are wider questions about why the AP published the story at all,\u201d Stelter said. \u201cThey had conducted a long investigation; did they just want to show they had done the work, did they just want to show they found something, even if it didn’t amount to much?\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

\"eye<\/a><\/p>\n

The Associated Press report found that at least 85 of 154 people who got an audience with Clinton while she led the State Department had donated to her family charity. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million and included private citizens with business before the government. It\u2019s as close to a \u201cpay to play\u201d smoking gun as has emerged to date. <\/b><\/p>\n

If this had been anyone else, especially if it were a Republican, CNN would be all over this like white on rice. However, since this is the Clinton News Network, where nothing bad is ever said about their masters, covering up for the Clinton Crime Cartel is the first, last and only order of business.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former President Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009,\u201d the AP wrote. <\/b><\/p>\n

[youtuber youtube=’http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Gbp_JQ7RxqM’]<\/p>\n

\u201cBut the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

Perception? The Clintons have a decades long history of graft, greed, corruption as well as a complete lack of ethics. The only groups that have been investigated as much as they have is the old Italian Mafia. They finally got them too, which should concern the Clintons.<\/p>\n

While most media outlets who subscribe to the AP published the story, The New York Times did not<\/a>. But it was unclear whether the \u201cpaper of record\u201d passed on the scoop because it was deemed not newsworthy or if it was for another reason. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"MSM2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

That reason? Marching orders from the Clintons.<\/p>\n

Stelter made it clear he thought little of the story.<\/b><\/p>\n

\"Manure\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cDid you feel the pressure to publish SOMETHING even though so many critics have said it didn\u2019t amount to much?\u201d he persisted to Carroll. <\/b><\/p>\n

And what critics would that be? Why that would be everyone working at CNN! The fact that the Clinton State Department fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing Cankles date book is reason enough to ask what they were trying to hide.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe question for me is, why has the State Department and the Clinton administration– I mean the Clinton State Department and beyond fought so hard to keep these calendars from us,\u201d Carroll replied to Stelter. She also informed him it took them more than six years, a court battle, and a judge\u2019s ruling to receive only Clinton\u2019s first two years\u2019 worth of calendars.<\/b><\/p>\n

The general reaction to the AP story from CNN has been \u201cLA LA LA LA LA…I can\u2019t hear you, you slimy good for nothing traitor to your class!\u201d<\/p>\n

Also over the weekend, CNN reporter Dylan Byers called the AP story \u201carguably misleading,\u201d because the journalistic organization sent an \u201cinaccurate tweet\u201d promoting the story by claiming that \u201cmore than half\u201d of the people who met Clinton while she was secretary of state had also donated to the Clinton Foundation. <\/b><\/p>\n

Byers’ point was that the calendars cited by the AP did not include other meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others. <\/b><\/p>\n

I think we call that \u201cClutching at straws.\u201d What you do need to consider is this number: $156 million dollars. That\u2019s how much these people paid the Clintons for access. That doesn\u2019t matter to the Clinton rump swabs of Clinton News Network. They will, like their masters, attack anyone personally for daring to question her royal highness, Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n

\"queen-hillary-steve-dininno\"<\/a><\/p>\n

NewsBusters<\/a> noted that Stelter\u2019s umbrage at the AP for the damning story seemed to extend to Carroll personally, when he took what seemed to be a swipe at her over the errant tweet. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201c[Tweets are] probably a problem or a challenge YOU didn’t face when you took over the AP years ago,\u201d he said. <\/b><\/p>\n

So Stelter\u2019s whole argument on outright rejecting the AP story revolves around a 140 character message that might not have the best mathematics in it?<\/p>\n

\"head_up_ass\"<\/a><\/p>\n

CNN\u2019s numbers have been dropping sharply, and it could be said it\u2019s their coverage of Obama and Clinton, or should I say lack of coverage. Cover up\u2019s seem to be the style of CNN these days. Along with the New York Slime<\/i><\/span> Times, they will do whatever they are ordered to do by Clinton and her master, George Soros. Eventually, they will have to face the music over their blatant propagandizing for Clinton.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Good day all. Last week, Associated Press broke a story regarding the apparent \u201cPay to Play\u201d scandal during Hillary Clinton\u2019s stint as Secretary of State. The story revolved around Clinton\u2019s email, and her State Department calendar. Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,100,71,8,115],"tags":[330,3,226,15,90,101,21,34],"class_list":["post-22091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-crime","category-moonbat","category-news-of-the-day","category-politics","category-stupidity-crime","tag-cnn","tag-crime","tag-hillary-clinton","tag-incompetence","tag-moonbattery","tag-news","tag-scams","tag-stupidity"],"views":625,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=22091"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22091\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32539,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22091\/revisions\/32539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=22091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=22091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=22091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}