When has the news media not been in the bag for what ever Democrat was running for office? Usually it is just pushing Democrat talking points. Now we’re seeing panic set it among the Democrats and their fluffers in the media as they see the election slowly but surely slipping away from Hillary Clinton’s flaccid, tremulous grasp. And when you put weak and corrupt people in a position of power and then panic them, they do weak and corrupt things. For instance, CNN.
Yesterday, a bomb went off in a dumpster in NYC. It doesn’t take much information to figure out a bomb is a bomb. And both campaigns made statements referring to the incident as a bombing. Incredibly, as my colleague Jay Caruso noted, even though Hillary Clinton called it a bomb, she and her fluffers were quickly out there claiming that Trump had jumped the gun. For instance:
The Latest on NYC blast: Donald Trump declared "bomb went off" in Chelsea before officials released any details. https://t.co/T1Hbd5wRB2
— The Associated Press (@AP) September 18, 2016
For the record, this is the old, sick, decrepit and somewhat disoriented Hillary Clinton talking about a bomb:
“I’ve been briefed about them bombings in New York and New Jersey.”
Then CNN comes along and actually edits her statement to get rid of the “bombing” reference.
Hillary Clinton address the NYC explosion and says she will have more to say "when we actually know some facts" https://t.co/eWR5Drx1sd
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) September 18, 2016
Comapare the two clips. CNN’s clip picks up at the 0:10 second mark of the whole video. They cut out the remarks about the bombings in NY and NJ and manufacture a statement that fits the AP story line that Trump immediately called it a bomb and Clinton waited for more information.
Sometimes the news media is partisan to such a disgusting level that I’d like for Donald Trump to win the presidency just so I could laugh at these douchenozzles having to cover Trump for the next four years. And if Clinton is elected, we can rest assured that CNN and its fellows, like the AP, will be about as aggressive covering her as Pravda was covering the Soviet Politburo.