Tag Archives: Martha Raddatz

Rewriting History To Prevent A Second Trump Presidency

Posted on by

Today The Federalist posted an article about the media’s renewed interest in the Steele Dossier. What is happening right now with the Dossier is a shot across the bow in an effort to prevent President Trump from running for President in 2024.

The article lists four things the author learned from the Hulu documentary about the Steele Dossier.

These are the four things:

1. At Least the Media Came Out of the Shadows

2. Steele Selected Stephanopoulos For a Reason

3. Christopher Steele Stands By His Dossier

4. He’s Crazy Like a Fox

Please follow the link to read the entire article, but here are a few excerpts:

Raddatz (ABC reporter Martha Raddatz) was not the only ABC personality interviewed during the program, and in this respect the media’s penchant for becoming the story reached a pinnacle, so much so that Hulu followed Stephanopoulos from his New York apartment en route to the airport and then to England. Once there, Steele’s screen time paled in comparison to the time Stephanopoulos devoted to interviewing his colleagues.

…Of course, Steele couldn’t have really taken the lead in the story because he remains in legal jeopardy and subject to potential civil liability. Steele needed to thread a needle: saying enough to create sympathy and shore up a legal defense while ensuring he stayed silent on anything of substance. Stephanopoulos served his purpose.

President Clinton’s former White House communications director promised the publicity Steele needed and provided a surface of seriousness to sell the story as a true piece of journalism. And Stephanopoulos was willing to travel to England, most definitely a requirement for Steele to avoid the subpoena power of the John Durham special counsel’s office.

…While Stephanopoulos’ painting of Steele as a patriotic and sympathetic character did not quite descend to the Jane Mayer level of propaganda, the generous profile of Steele nonetheless laid the groundwork necessary to soften the more serious questions that would end the show. The Hulu special’s biographical focus also served to elevate Steele, suggesting a more substantial role in British intelligence than likely and bolstering his credibility by highlighting his connection to the FBI’s investigation into the World Cup soccer bribery scandal.

Against this backdrop, a viewer unacquainted with the depth of the Spygate scandal, such as Stephanopoulos and ABC’s regular audience, might find Steele’s assurances that his sources and their stories are credible, even against the backdrop of the U.S. inspector general’s “devastating” report that “eviscerated” Steele’s reporting, according to one of the few non-ABC figures interviewed, former New York Times reporter Barry Meier.

“With respect to your work,” Stephanopoulos noted, the IG report concluded that “certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, place and title information, much of which was publicly available.”

The article concludes:

Those well-versed in the entire Russia-collusion hoax likely watched Steele in disbelief, wondering how delusional he must be to sit calmly before a worldwide audience and defend the unbelievable. But the interview served a purpose, because the few times Stephanopoulos challenged Steele, it works to his own benefit as it provided the dossier author the opportunity to counter claims that he peddled knowingly false information to the FBI

While Steele professed in the interview that he had done nothing wrong and did not fear being charged and extradited to the United States, sometimes the best defense is an offense. What better way to counter a potential charge of making false statements to the FBI than to profess you believe the information passed on was true? Well, that, and the defense colloquially known as Orange Man Bad, which Steele seemed to also hide behind, speaking of Trump as a continuing threat to the United States and United Kingdom’s national security.

Steele may be right about one thing, though, when he said in the final minutes of the interview that he “think[s] this book is not finished by a longshot.” Hopefully, however, it will be Durham writing the final chapter.

The Hulu version of events is pure propaganda, but those who get their news via the mainstream media and watch the ‘documentary’ will  see it as truth. That is part of the reason for the divide in America, and the media bears much of the responsibility for that divide.

The Networks Have Totally Lost Their Credibility

Posted on by

Newsbusters posted an article today about an interview to be aired on ABC during prime time on Sunday.

The article reports:

On June 15, former National Security Adviser John Bolton sat down for an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz to promote his new “tell all” book, expected to rip the bark off the Trump White House. ABC is airing it Sunday during prime time….just like they aired a prime time interview in 2018 with former FBI director James Comey to promote his anti-Trump “tell all” book.

In 2007, Bolton wrote a book about his experience in government. No major network came calling for a prime time special. He wasn’t useful to them back then.

Now try to remember ABC offering a prime time special to an Obama insider who wrote a rip-roaring “tell-all” book. You’ll have a tough time. Because most publishers are liberals, and aren’t going to roll out the red carpet for that kind of book….even if the author is a liberal. So there was no insider “tell-all” for ABC to promote.

The article notes that there were never any prime time interviews for authors of tell-all books about the Obama administration.

The article continues:

To be fair, there were former Obama officials who came out with memoirs that may have said something negative about Obama…and they were attacked for it.

In 2014, Robert Gates, Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, was selling a book. As he sat in NBC’s studio wearing a neck brace, Today co-host Matt Lauer accused him of endangering the troops for having the audacity to criticize the sitting commander-in-chief: “[A]t a time when some 40,000 U.S. troops are in harm’s way, do you think that by calling him into question at this stage it is either dangerous or dishonorable?”

Now look back and imagine being called “dishonorable” by Matt Lauer.  

In 2013, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, fired by President Obama over critical comments from his staff in a Rolling Stone article, issued his memoirs, and did a round of TV interviews. The first one, with CBS Pentagon correspondent David Martin, mostly skipped Obama, except for McChrystal to express pain over his apparent “disloyalty” with Rolling Stone. There wasn’t any attack on Obama. The general did promote his book on a special edition of Hannity in prime time, and the Fox host talked through what happened with Obama, but there was no trashing of the president.

This same pattern emerged last September with Gen. James Mattis. CBS promoted his book in two interviews, but completely ignored his strong criticisms of Obama. He even called some of his choices “catastrophic.”

Instead, CBS This Morning co-host Anthony Mason asked about Trump: “What do you think the President got wrong about Syria?” Guest host Maria Elena Salinas pushed about his resignation: “Was it your decision to leave, or were you fired, or were you pushed into resigning or pressured into resigning?”

The article concludes:

There’s no need to pre-judge what John Bolton will say to ABC. But we can judge a long history of “tell all” imbalance, from the publishing houses to the TV studios. Republicans are mercilessly dissected. Democrats are carefully protected.

ABC is not noted for presenting both sides of the story. How much of the Comey interview was proven to be lies after documents were declassified? Those who claim to want to bring the country together (and accuse President Trump of dividing it) would do well to begin by reporting both sides of every story and letting the American people discern the truth.

Really??!!

Posted on by

This article is based on information posted on The Federalist Papers Project.

There will be three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate before the election. That’s good news. Americans will get to see how the candidates respond to questions and charges, etc. However, the choice of moderators is simply ridiculous.

The first “Commander in Chief” forum on September 7 will be moderated by Matt Lauer, Mr. Lauer is a ‘notable’ member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Does anyone really believe that he will be an impartial moderator?

The first Presidential debate will be moderated by Lester Holt, Anchor, NBC Nightly News. Mr. Holt can be expected to be somewhat less than even-handed.

The second Presidential debate will be moderated by Martha Raddatz, Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and Co-Anchor of “This Week,” ABC and Anderson Cooper, Anchor, CNN. If you are okay with this, remember Candy Crowley in the Obama/Romney debate. It came out later that Romney was telling the truth and Candy Crowley was lying, but at that point the truth didn’t matter. Expect the same sort of tactics in this debate. I would like to note that this debate is up against an NFL football game between the Giants and the Packers.

The third Presidential debate will be hosted by Chris Wallace. This is an attempt to appease the Republicans. Chris Wallace is not a horrible choice–he is probably the most neutral moderator possible considering who controls the media. At least he occasionally has been know to hold Hillary Clinton‘s feet to the fire when she is lying.

Regardless of moderators, schedules, etc., there will be some things learned during these debates. How does Hillary look? It seems that in the course of her questioning by the FBI about her emails, she talked about a brain injury from a fall and the fact that she was only able to return to work part time. How will she look to the American voters? Make-up can do wonderful things, but it can’t hide memory loss or mental confusion. We shall see.

Meanwhile, stay tuned and get out the popcorn–there is going to be a show!

 

A Few Thoughts On The Vice-Presidential Debate

Posted on by

The debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan last night probably didn’t change anything. I felt that the moderator was reasonably fair. Joe Biden had slightly more time than Paul Ryan, but it was basically even. The only thing I would have changed was to have the moderator stop the frequent interruptions by Joe Biden when Paul Ryan was talking. I was also totally turned off by Joe Biden’s lack of respect for Paul Ryan, as shown in the smirking, laughing, etc. at Paul Ryan’s answers.

The Daily Caller posted its commentary this morning.

The article quotes Charles Krauthammer:

“If you read the transcript, I think it’s dead even,” Krauthammer said. ”If you heard it on radio, Biden won. If you watched on television, he lost. In the transcript, if you just look at the raw arguments I think it was even because each side had points to make and made them. I think on balance, not one side was stronger than another.”

The article also pointed out that Paul Ryan was not always able to follow up when Joe Biden made statements that were not true:

…And Ryan reacted with, I thought, excessive deference, allowing himself to be cut off and often just ending with a point that you might understand — for instance, when he talked about the Catholic Bishops — he made a point after Biden had said, ‘Oh, the Bishops of the Catholic church is not going to be compelled to do anything under ObamaCare.’”

“Ryan said, ‘Then why is that the Bishops are suing the administration?’ But that is almost an aside, and it was lost, and then it was over by the next question.”

All in all, I thought it was a good debate. I don’t think it changes anything, but it was a good debate. I also appreciated that Martha Raddatz pressed Joe Biden when he repeated the lies that the Obama Administration has told about the attack on the American Embassy at Benghazi. Much of the mainstream media has not covered the Congressional hearings on the attack, and the American people need to be aware that they were purposely lied to.

I Have Totally Mixed Emotions On This

Posted on by

On Wednesday, the Daily Caller posted an article detailing some close ties between vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz and President Obama. Among other things, President Obama was a guest at the moderator’s wedding in 1991. The article reports that Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

The article at the Daily Caller goes on to detail a rather close relationship between President Obama and Mr. Genachowski which has continued over the years.

The article reports:

Genachowski’s friendship with Obama would continue through the campaign trail in 2008 and into the White House: He aggressively fundraised for Obama in 2008 as a campaign bundler, and served on the presidential transition team before winning his appointment to chair the FCC.

It should be mentioned that Martha Raddatz and Julius Genachowski divorced and are now married to other people.

I do find this a little unsettling. I think ABC could have found a moderator without a direct connection to the President, but I am willing to watch the debate and hope that Ms. Raddatz is fair and objective.

Enhanced by Zemanta