Ok you want examples of negative stories about trump that are related to policy or some extent of a scandal. I searched google for the phrase "Trump CNN." Here is one from the day before yesterday:
View attachment 742062
So if we only read the headline and believe it to be true, what are we accepting?
That Trump and his people were planning to attack Barr for refuting Trump's voter fraud claim. No if, ands or buts, that's what was revealed by a transcript is the claim of the headline.
Let's look at what's in the story. First two paragraphs expand on the headline:
In December 2020, after then-Attorney General William Barr publicly refuted President Donald Trumpās claims that the election was rigged, White House staffers drafted a press release that wouldāve called for the firing of anyone who disagreed with Trumpās claims, according to a new transcript from the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021.
The draft statement ended with, āAnybody that thinks there wasnāt massive fraud in 2020 election should be fired,ā according to the deposition.
Then it goes on to describe what the committee called a "draft statement."
The draft statement ā which was never sent out, and hadnāt been revealed before Friday ā was brought up during the committeeās deposition of Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, according to the transcript. Congressional investigators told him that they likely obtained the statement from the National Archives, which turned over documents from the Trump White House.
So the statement never was sent out. I wonder why, since Trump is just the kind of evil guy to do something like that? Who decided that the statement should not go out, I wonder?
The committee also said during the Cipollone interview that White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson previously testified that Mark Meadows gave her the draft statement ā which was a handwritten note ā after an Oval Office meeting on the same day Barr made his public comments refuting Trump. It appears that the statement didnāt explicitly name Barr.
"It appears that the statement didn't explicitely name Barr?" Huh? Let's take another look at the headline.
View attachment 742064
No, the headline said that it was a statement attacking Barr. So . . . the headline lied.
The committee claimed that Hutchinson testified that she was instructed by Meadows to seek Cipolloneās approval before the statement was posted on social media. The committee said Hutchinson testified that Cipolloneās response was, āGod, no.ā Cipollone said he had no recollection of the draft statement or the episode.
So it was the White House who did not send out the statement, which did not attack Barr. It was a handwritten note by an unknown person. That's assuming that everything that
Cassidy Hutchinson said was true. Read that sentence again.
I'm trying to figure out if this story is based in reality at all. I suppose you could say that the sources are all truthful, then someone had an idea for a social media post that they ran by counsel and it was shot down. That would ahve been the hones headline.
āBy the way, I wasnāt fired,ā Cipollone quipped to the committee.
So, Trump took the advice of his WH counsel, and took no negative action against him.
But if you read the headline only - which I know a LOT of Democrats do - Trump comes off as a childish asshole.
So I take "Trump again revealed to be a childish asshole" stories with a big grain of thought.
Tell your media to stop burying stories unfavorable to Democrats and falsifying and hyping stories unfavorable to Trump, and they can start to earn back some credibility.
