CNN Rips President Trump’s Sunday Tweets Apart, Calls Them Lies

Most of you are probably aware of President Trump’s Sunday morning Tweet Storm by now, but hopefully, you are not spending any time watching the Communist News Network or reading their nonsense, thus have no idea of how they attacked the President calling his Tweets lies.

Unfortunately, I choose to scan their junk so I can report the highlights to you because it is important to have an understanding of the enemy—IF the liberals can ever really be understood. LOL

CNN had one of their liberal reporters take the President’s Tweets and pick them apart one-by-one pointing out all of the “lies” then giving people what they consider to be the truth.

Like most conservative Republicans I know, I believe in calling a spade a spade and while some of the things the President Tweeted about are unknown at the moment and can not be assigned a truth or lie, the CNN reporter used the same standard they do with everything and assigned truth to their opinions or perspective and referred to unsubstantiated reports by unidentified sources as fact.

I thought I would walk you through the President’s Tweets and their responses and identify the truth from the unknown with factual information that can be referenced by something other than unidentified sources with no names.

My comments/rebuttal to the CNN authors statements will be in bold blue text.

The following five Tweets were sent by President Trump between 9:04 a.m. and 9:37 p.m. and CNN calls them “riddled with misinformation and, in some cases, outright falsehoods. They assert that 11 things in the Tweets are not true.

The first Tweet they attack was sent by President Trump at 9:04 a.m.

This is how they explain that Tweet to their audience:

“Trump is referring here to an article in the Times published Saturday detailing a 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a liaison for two Arab princes in which the emissary made clear that his clients wanted to assist Trump’s campaign.

He is also making a tangential reference to a detailed piece published in the Times earlier this week that detailed the origins of the FBI investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between his campaign and the Russians.

Trump is hanging his conclusion on this one sentence: “A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.”

What that sentences makes clear is a) no public evidence yet exists and b) the investigation is ongoing.”

Just what in the heck the author is trying to say here I’ll leave for you to surmise. Personally, I would never argue with a statement that the New York Times wrote a long and boring story no matter who was making the claim.

Before I go any further, I do want to point out that the CNN author pokes fun at the President for misspelling a word in one of his original Tweets. Now I am no grammar Nazi and find things like that to be petty, but CNN considers themselves a professional news agency and one would think with editors and arrogant writers that someone would have caught the error I highlighted in red above. Now I am no English Professor, but “What that sentences makes clear is” sounds more like some sort of uneducated 80’s Ebonics than a well educated arrogant reporter who makes fun of other peoples typos… Just sayin’ as kids like to say these days. That is not the only spelling error in the article either, I will highlight the others in red.

The reporter then identifies this as Untruth/Exaggeration Count: 1

Untruth/Exaggeration Count: 1

The Second Tweet was sent by President Trump at 9:11 a.m.

This is how they explain the Tweet to their audience:

There’s zero factual basis — at least that I can find — for Trump putting a $20 million price tag on the Mueller probe. The closest we have come to a fact-based cost for the Mueller probe is back in December, when the investigation’s total cost was $6.7 million.

Here the author claims there is “zero factual basis” for President Trump’s $20 million price tag and states that back in December 2017 the total cost was only $6.7 million.

While the author is correct that no one could claim a factual basis for the $20 million price tag the President mentions, one could easily surmise, based on what little facts are known, that the price tag could easily have reached the $20 million mark.

The report mentioned by the author from December 2017 that had the investigation’s total cost at $6.7 million covered expenditures from mid-May 2017 when Mueller was appointed through to September 2017. A time span of a mere four months and already $6.7 million had been spent.

Now, that report is based on a report released by the Department of Justice, but for some mysterious reason, since that report was provided the Department of Justice has decided that the cost of the investigation needs to remain classified so as not to compromise the investigation. In other words, they know if the public finds out the actual cost, they would be furious!

If one does some basic math along with some educated guessing they might figure the numbers something like this:

  • The first quarter of the investigation cost $6.7 million and since then additional staff has been hired and that was because the investigation was organized and moving ahead, but to be reasonable let’s just assume that the cost per quarter has remained at $6.7 million. $6.7 million X 3 =$20.1 million.

Now, unlike the CNN author, I am acknowledging that there is no factual basis for this amount, but to call it an untruth or an exaggeration is at best disingenuous. Any reasonable person with some familiarity with government spending habits and the cost of running one of these investigations would find a $20 million price tag after one year a fairly reasonable guestimate.

Trump’s claim that there are 13 Democrats on Mueller’s team is also false. According to The Washington Post’s Fact Checker, five of the 16 known members of Mueller’s team donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. The New York Times says that nine of the 17 known lawyers on Mueller’s team have donated to Democratic campaigns in the past. Then there’s this from the Post’s Philip Bump: “Of the 18 attorneys we identified on Mueller’s team, half gave no money to anyone, according to our analysis. Another five gave $1,000 or less. The one who gave the most also gave to two Republicans.”

It’s not entirely clear who Trump is referring to with the line “two people who have worked for Obama for 8 years” but, presumably, one of them is Mueller himself. The problem with that is that Mueller was appointed FBI director by President George W. Bush, a Republican. President Obama simply kept Mueller on for the length of his 10-year term.

Here we find the author questioning President Trump’s claim that the deck is stacked against him and that Mueller’s team is made up entirely of Democrats.

The first thing I want to note is this nonsense the liberal media likes to toss out about how Robert Mueller is a Republican. True enough, he is said to have been a registered Republican back in 2001 when a Republican President named George Bush appointed him to be the Director of the FBI, but given the overwhelming gang of so-called “Never Trumper’s” that came primarily from the deep state elitist crowd that Mueller comes from combined with President Trump interviewing him to be his FBI Director then giving him the thumbs down, Republican or not, I think it is a reasonable assumption that Robert Mueller is a definite Never Trumper.

In addition to the things mentioned above, we all know how the liberal media likes to point to the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham as Republicans, but I think the Republican Party knows which way they lean.

Another example of one of Mueller’s Team Members they are calling a Republican is Zainab Ahmad who registered as a Republican at the age of 18, then later changed her registration status to “unaffiliated.”

While there are a couple on the list that no one can definitively point to as being Democrat or Republican based on public information, I would suggest to you that if Mueller’s team of investigators were truly unbiased and seeking facts, we would have seen people like Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Hillary, etc., being hauled in and interviewed because the evidence that exists in the public realm that easily rises to the probable cause standard is overwhelming.

Overall, I think putting your money on the deck being stacked against President Trump is a much safer bet than successfully demonstrating he has assembled a team of “neutral” investigators.

Trump says that Mueller’s team has found no collusion (he misspelled that word in the original tweet), but that too is not accurate. The investigation is ongoing and all of Mueller’s findings have yet to go public.

Here is where this twit pokes fun at President Trump misspelling a word in his original Tweet, which he must have noticed and corrected. This author would be better served if he is going to poke fun at others to check his own work over a little better first.

As for the claim that there has been no collusion found by Mueller’s team, I think the President is well within the realm of giving his honest belief especially since Rod Rosenstein has told the President personally and has publically confirmed that President Trump is not a target of Mueller’s investigation.

Robert Mueller may still have questions and may even hope he can catch President Trump in a Perjury trap, but if anyone thinks that news of President Trump or his campaign colluding with Russia would not have leaked out like Niagara Falls by now if it existed, they are kidding themselves and being dishonest with everyone else.

The author assigns an Untruth/Exaggeration Count of 4 to this Tweet.

Untruth/Exaggeration Count: 4

The Third Tweet was sent by President Trump at 9:19 a.m.

This is how they explain the Tweet to their audience:

First, a truth: Clinton did delete 33,000 emails after she and her attorneys determined they were entirely private and personal communications with no ties to her work as Secretary of State.

This one here shows just how whack this author is… To their credit, they acknowledge that Clinton did delete the emails, but since the same author is pointing out and giving demerits for exaggeration, we have to give them the mother of exaggeration credits for this BS about Hillary and her attorneys reviewing the emails to make sure they were entirely private and personal communications. What a crock and in fact, we already know from some that were recovered that they were not all personal and private communications.

Now, to the untruths.

The $145 million figure Trump is referring to is the total donations to the Clinton Foundation by nine individuals who also at one time or another had investments in a Russian company that Clinton’s State Department allowed to buy a majority stake in Uranium One, a Canada-based company with US mining interests. The problems with Trump’s claim, as detailed here by PolitiFact, are considerable and include the fact that the donations to the Clinton Foundation were made prior to the idea of Clinton serving as secretary of State and that State was one of nine agencies who okayed the deal.

WOW, I don’t even know where to begin with this one… Let me start with the use of PolitiFact as their source… Sure, whatever. LOL I really don’t want to bore everyone with the full details here because I could write a book about this. Let me just point out what the CNN author has done here which should be sufficient enough to demonstrate they are intentionally being disingenuous. The author tells their readers that Uranium One is a Canadian company. Well, that is what you call a “half-truth” or “liberal spin.” The truth is that Uranium One is a Russian-Canadian Company and that is easily and readily available public information that anyone can verify… Hell, I bet even PolitiFact would acknowledge that. For the CNN Author to accuse President Trump of exaggerating and lying then try and slip some BS like that past the readers really leaves them with no credibility at all.

Trump’s insistence that someone in the Clinton campaign paid then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s wife $700,000 as a payoff to drop any investigations into them is a jumble of falsehoods. McCabe’s wife ran for the state Senate in Virginia in 2015. A super PAC affiliated with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton ally, donated $500,000 to her campaign. She lost. There is zero evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved in the donation in any way, shape or form, or that McAuliffe made the donation to dissuade Andrew McCabe from looking into alleged wrongdoing by the Clintons.

Here we have another example of this CNN author living in liberal land and not being grounded in reality. The truth is neither the CNN author or the President can say for absolute certain that the campaign donation to his wife was for or not for anything nefarious. One thing that can be said for certain though is that for Andrew McCabe, who remember has been fired for lying—more than once—should have recused himself from any investigation or investigations related to Hillary Clinton given her connection. I would add, and this is just an opinion based on observation, I think a lot of those involved in the Hillary email investigation is going to find themselves indicted when the Inspector General’s report is released in the coming weeks.

The author assigns an Untruth/Exaggeration Count of 2 to this Tweet.

Untruth/Exaggeration Count: 2

The Fourth Tweet was sent by President Trump at 9:29 a.m.

This is how they explain the Tweet to their audience:

 The Mueller probe has not “given up” on Russia. It’s worth noting that five people in the Trump campaign orbit have already pleaded guilty to crimes unearthed by Mueller and several — including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates — are cooperating with the Mueller probe.
Here we have the CNN author harping about the five people in the Trump Campaign “orbit” that have pleaded guilty to crimes unearthed by Mueller. First, several of these convictions are not crimes unearthed, they are crimes created by Mueller known as the “perjury trap.” I don’t know about the rest of you but I do not consider someone who was caught off guard in the initial phases of an investigation lying to an FBI agent a serious crime and certainly not one of collusion with Russia. What’s worse is we know that in at least the case of General Flynn he lied about having done something that was not even a crime or wrong for him to have done. We also know that the reason he took the plea agreement is that they were trying to implicate his son in this mess and he was going broke paying for his legal defense. The man who served this nation for more than 30 years in uniform had to sell his house to pay for his defense.
The only person facing any possible real charges is Manafort and they are going after him for a crime that occurred at least a decade before the campaign. We also learned in the past couple of weeks that one of the companies Mueller indicted, the one that was allegedly the closest connection to Putin, did not even exist during the time period Mueller alleged they committed a crime.
The truth is, these are all strong-arm convictions of people Mueller went after to force someone to give up something incriminating on President Trump and all indications thus far are that they have produced nothing… Well, that is not entirely true… Let me correct myself here. What has been turning up as these things unfold are connections between Mueller, McCabe, and Comey with a Russian Oligarch and that his appointment as a Special Prosecutor is part of a conspiracy at the highest levels to destroy President Trump.

It may take some time, but thank God we have a couple of people in the Congress and Senate that are proving to be relentless and unafraid to seek the truth and I don’t believe they are going to give up until the whole truth is known.

It’s less clear what Trump is referring to with the phrase “Dems FISA abuse” although he has repeatedly suggested that Obama ordered a wiretap on him at Trump Tower during the campaign (not true) and that the FBI placed an informant in his campaign as spy (knowledgeable sources deny that claim).

First, take not to the smug author’s sentence structure in the bold red above. I think he meant to say as “a” spy.
Here he begins with the statement that it is less clear what President Trump is referring to in regard to the FISA abuse and then goes on to say that the President’s assertion that his campaign was under surveillance is not true. Well, based on these comments one has to wonder if this reporter is intentionally lying to and deceiving the reader or if they are just not staying informed. If anyone reading this does not know what the President was referring to with his FISA abuse comment, please let us know in the comment section. One has to be living under a rock not to know what he is making reference to there. Insofar as the President’s campaign being spied on, the information that has come to light this past weekend has settled that argument… They were, in fact, spying on the President’s Campaign. Clapper who is now a CNN hack himself all but admitted it on television over the weekend with his comment that had someone been spying on the campaign to determine the amount of Russian involvement, it would be a good thing.
These clowns in the liberal media are starting to remind me of Baghdad Bob… Anyone remember him? The greatest Press Secretary of all time. The man stood in front of a microphone telling the public in Iraq that America has been defeated while gunfire could be heard outside the room. LOL If the liberal media wants to continue stomping their feet saying the President is a crook while the Obama Administrations FBI and DOJ managers are hauled off in handcuff’s that’s fine by me, but it is looking a lot more probable that the likes of Comey, Clapper, McCabe, Hillary, etc.,… will be indicted for crimes long before the President is.
As for the missing emails, it is not clear what crime Trump is alleging, although there is little doubt Clinton would have been better served to have a neutral third party go through her emails to determine which were personal and could be deleted and which were not.
Geeze, here again, this CNN author is displaying such ignorance that they have to be intentionally deceiving or flat out lying. I do believe in credit where credit is due though… No matter how small… The author acknowledges that Hillary would have been better served to have a neutral third party go through the emails. Gee, ya think? If anyone really believes that Hillary only destroyed her personal emails please contact me… I’m sure I can find a nice oceanfront home in Arizona to sell you.
Trump’s claim that the so-called “Steele dossier” is “fraudulent” is also not accurate. The more salacious elements of the dossier, gathered by former British spy Christopher Steele, are unconfirmed by the FBI. But the intelligence community has made clear that portions of the dossier are borne out by their own investigation.
To quote New York Congressman Peter King who is on the Intelligence Oversite Committee and is familiar with and has seen all of this, the only thing in the Dossier that is true and verifiable is his name. So one can only assume that the portions borne out by their own investigation the author refers to are the President’s name and address…
The author assigns an Untruth/Exaggeration Count of 3 (at least) to this Tweet.
Untruth/Exaggeration Count: 3 (at least)

The Fifth Tweet was sent by President Trump at 9:29 a.m.

This is how they explain the Tweet to their audience:

This one is, mostly, accurate! The FBI confirmed that the DNC repeatedly rejected their requests to turn over the email server that had been penetrated by someone allegedly affiliated with the Russians.

WOAH, I almost fell over when I came to the statement above… Imagine that, one instance of complete and total honesty from the CNN author. Miracles do happen. 🙂

Trump’s reference to the raids conducted by the FBI on the homes and offices of people like former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen misses the mark, however. Federal law enforcement did not break into these homes. They conducted raids based on search warrants — and entirely legal process based on, among other things, probable cause.

The moment of truth by the CNN author was short lived in this passive-aggressive response to the President’s Tweet. First, it is true that the FBI obtained the appropriate warrants, but I would suggest before explaining further that you could put an assassination order for the President in front of most liberal judges in this country and they would sign it given the hate and bias demonstrated time and again by them for the President.

I would note that these warrants and raids were carried out to intimidate even if there was the underlying support to conduct them. Anyone in law enforcement reading this knows that getting a no-knock warrant is not an easy thing, nor is it a preferred thing. One has to prove that it would be dangerous to knock on the door giving the suspect warning or that there was a high risk they could destroy evidence, etc.,… To the best of my knowledge, Paul Manifort does not have a history of fighting the police and has never been in a shootout with anyone. And given that they were there with a warrant to take everything, I doubt he could have flushed the evidence down the toilet on his way to the door. The FBI removed the man’s door a zero-dark-thirty then rushed in and spread them prone on the floor at gunpoint, including his wife who was in bed in her sleepwear. I don’t know their exact age, but they look to be in their 60’s and Paul Manifort does not give off any kind of tough-guy image.

The same goes for the simultaneous raid on the President’s private attorney’s properties. There was no need for no-knock warrants to be served on these two in the manner they were. These were a blatant abuse of power to intimidate the two of them.

The author assigns an Untruth/Exaggeration Count of 1 to this Tweet.

Untruth/Exaggeration Count: 1

To sum this all up, it is a damn shame that a reporter for a mainstream media outlet that the public relies on for truthful information would spin out junk like this. I’m just a one-man hack with a website evaluating the news for people and I think I can say with confidence, I have been far more honest with you here than the author for CNN.

I want to make just one final note before the grammar Nazi’s attack me. I make no claims that I am perfect or an English major that gets it right all the time, but I don’t criticise or try to publically humiliate the President or anyone else for mistakes they make in a Tweet. I have only noted the CNN authors mistakes because they do. You can probably find dozens of mistakes I made in this article. 🙂

Share your thoughts and comments with me in the comment section.

The Trump News Gazette

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.