"Fact or opinion?"
"....before calling on his supporters to violently stop Congress from counting the Electoral College votes".
Last night on the CBS Evening News, Nora O'Donnell opened her broadcast by repeating the mantra that President Trump, "called on his supporters to violently stop Congress from counting the Electoral College vote." Below is the entire show. The statement comes between the 2:30-2:48 marks.
In fairness, O'Donnell might argue that she was merely referring to the case that the Democrat impeachment managers were trying to make. I would call it parroting. Keep in mind she wasn't speaking off the cuff; she was reading the words off a screen.
The fact is that Trump never uttered that exhortation. He referred to the protesters marching "peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol to make their voices heard."
This is another example of journalism at its most skillful-and at its worst.
9 comments:
Did he say "peacefully"? Yes.
And you could make a good case that he's not to blame if you pay attention to that and ignore absolutely everything else that he said and did. (He told them to "fight like hell" too, ya know.)
The question is this:
Would this have happened if Trump didn't lie about the election results?
So many people who have been arrested are saying that they did it because they believed that's exactly what he wanted them to do. Even if you want to make the case that Q was to blame for making them think that, Trump had a chance to condemn Q, and he didn't. He claimed that he didn't know much about it, which makes him either stupid or a liar. One way or the other though, he was more than happy to have those useful idiots on his side.
Really though, for somebody who writes so much about the dangers of people being radicalized by Islam, it's amazing how you're not seeing the parallels. So many liberals want to find everything else to blame other than radical imams and their interpretations of the Koran (which has a lot of really troublesome passages.) They keep acting like it's such a mystery as to what motivated them.
And now here we are with a bunch of people, motivated by a lie told by Trump, carrying Trump flags, storming the capitol. And here we have so-called "conservatives" wondering how such a thing could have happened.
Think of the people who died on 1/6. Would they still be alive if Trump conceded? Trump didn't even attend the funeral of the Brian Sicknick, the cop who lost his life (and was a Trump voter). Biden did though.
In a criminal case, there would have o be a direct nexus between the words and the actions of the mob in response. Had Trump told the crowd to go to the Capitol, break in, and violently put a stop to the vote, and that ensued, then that would legally be considered incitement. Using expressions like "not going to take it anymore" and "fight like Hell" have different meanings. A baseball team can fight like Hell. A candidate can fight like Hell. Attorney commercials promise, "We'll fight for you". No violence is implied.
During the Clinton impeachment, the expression used by the Democrats was, "It's time to move on". That definitely applies here. Prosecute those who broke into the Capitol to the fullest extent of the law. But it is they who bear the responsibility for what they did.
Comparing this to Clinton is ridiculous, even if I think that Clinton should have been removed. (I actually lean towards removal for him.)
The thing is, if a Presidential election WAS stolen, that would justify an uprising of some sort. That would mean that our democracy has been completely destroyed. But that's not what happened. It's what Trump wanted to do though.
And yes, "fight like hell" isn't always literal. But look at the whole timeline of events. Minutes after he tweeted an attack on Mike Pence, the crowd was chanting "Hang Mike Pence!"
And why did he attack Pence? Because he wouldn't overturn the election results.
I mean, do you even acknowledge that the whole thing about the stolen election was a lie?
Does the truth even matter to you?
Just because Nora O'Donnell said it was a lie, doesn't mean it was a lie. I don't know if it was true or not, but I think a lot of questions need to be answered. And what did Trump tweet specifically about Mike Pence? Did he tweet that he should be hanged or otherwise subjected to violence?
Comparing Clinton is ridiculous? Trump isn't even president anymore and they want to impeach him. Now that's ridiculous.
I don't even know who Nora O'Donnell is. The fact is that Trump lied about the election and then did everything he could to overturn the results. These two points aren't even debatable.
The fact that you don't even seem to know about Trump's tweet makes me think that you're not even paying attention.
You don't know who Nora O'Donnell is? You are obviously not paying attention since she was the subject of the post.
What Trump said about Pence, especially at that time, was classless. Was it a crime or an impeachable offense? It just proves what you and I both know: He is a jerk.
But you don't impeach people or prosecute them for being jerks. Criticize him all day for what he said, but what do you want here-to put him in jail?
And you are right. I am not paying attention. I am not watching the proceedings. If you want to watch every minute, be my guest, but he is not going to be "convicted".
Then again, maybe they can try and impeach him again for a third time. Keep hope alive!
I know that she's the subject of your post. I'm saying that up until then, I didn't know her. My point is that whether Trump was lying or not doesn't have anything to do with who she is or what she says.
If Trump is acquitted, will it be because he's actually innocent or because too many Republicans lack the spine to do what's right?
And if you think that a second impeachment is a joke, I guess you must agree that the ten (six of which were controlled by Republicans) Benghazi investigations that resulted in nothing were overkill too?
Of course you don't.
Benghazi was a national disgrace. At the time I wrote many posts on it so I invite you to go through my archives. There is so much that I could repeat.
As for Nora O'Donnell, she is the anchor of the CBS National Evening News, and as such I would have expected her (naively) to report the news in an even-handed manner. But she doesn't. Like her colleagues, she cleverly leaves her viewers inferring all sorts of conclusions. This was just one example.
Post a Comment