A New Low for the Partisan Fanatics at CNN

Many are dismissing Nunes' disclosures as being too vague, too filled with "may be's" and "could be's," too reliant on Nunes' subjective assessment that the intel reports seem make him "uncomfortable" and strike him as "inappropriate."

Fair enough.

But is that the standard the media uses in examining all such leaks?

No it is definitely not -- this tough standard of review goes out the window when the leaks being discussed are anti-Trump.

At Powerline, check out CNN's maybe-kinda-sorta "breaking news."

The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

Odd how CNN comes together as a single mind to declare Nunes' claims as "too speculative" and not sufficiently backed by evidence which is disclosed and open to examination, while at the same time they essentially make up reasons to re-re-report the same unevidenced "suspicions" their Obama loyalist sources feed to them.

And note that none of this is new at all -- this is the same bullshit they've been feeding us for months. CNN's goal here is not to break new news but to maintain political pressure by simply re-re-reporting that which has been reported to death. The Democrats have an agenda item -- they are campaigning for a special prosecutor or special investigative committee which will have free reign to go on a fishing expedition on Trump for four or eight years -- and CNN is an important political operative in agitating for that scheme.

Meanwhile, where is CNN on the question of whether Nunes' charges similarly require constant re-reportage and their own special prosecutor who can go on a fishing expedition against Obama loyalists for two or eight years?

Nah, no need for that -- there is insufficient evidence for that sort of thing.

But for Trump -- we need that, stat. Also based on no evidence.

But CNN thinks its Obama loyalist sources are super-swell guys and Big Patriots and you should too!

posted by Ace at 02:45 PM

| Access Comments