Nothing new to CNN and blackmail

Back on the day before Trump’s inauguration, CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, basically threatening Trump and his administration, that:

“One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seol, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus – and that’s CNN.

The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with [us] that network is a mistake.

Do the translation of that. We hold your perception in our hands, act accordingly.
Our media monopoly = your ‘perception’ demise, should we decide so. From the network with 93% negative coverage of Trump. (that is not adversarial, it’s vendetta journalism)

Forward to today and one objectionable meme to CNN. They hunt down and solicit an apology and he removes content, and then CNN says:

“CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.”

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Andrew the self-anointed speech cop for CNN claims no threat.
Now we are “misinterpreting” their statement. Nah, don’t think so.

Two “Becauses”, one “in addition” and one “reserves right should ANY of that change.” = no threat? (IOW: a veto right to our nondisclosure of your identity and whatever we like.)

Where is his “right” (speech) “reserved”? No, it is now conditional upon CNN’s approval.

Misinterpreted? Lots of “intent” there. Who made them speech judge, juror, executioner?

(But if it were a CNN anonymous source, ignore and reverse all the above.)

The tweet risk of Donald Trump vs Bill Clinton’s Libido risk

Hillary Clinton exercising the politics of fear told us on Thursday in her speech:

“Imagine [Trump] in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”

Wait, what’s wrong with that? I know, that a man you can bait with a woman — many women — was in the Oval Office in the nineties and it was her husband.

Now she is worried about the power of a tweet. Never mind how many places around the world she and Bill are probably susceptible to blackmail from.

In her speech, she went on to say:

“I can’t put it any better than Jackie Kennedy did after the Cuban Missile Crisis. She said that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by big men with self-control and restraint, but by little men – the ones moved by fear and pride.

America’s strength doesn’t come from lashing out.

Strength relies on smarts, judgment, cool resolve, and the precise and strategic application of power.

That’s the kind of Commander-in-Chief I pledge to be.”

But Bill and Hillary had the right strategic application of power? Really, it’s laughable.

So apparently the wondering penis of her husband, with all the pride attached, bothers her not. All the consequences it involves, both past or future, are irrelevant? Then we had Hillary’s own conduct storing State information on her server in the basement. Now the queen of State breach is going to lecture us about national security conduct.

Recently Hillary called Bill Clinton her “Explainer in Chief” to tie the knot. So trust the explanations, for her own scandalous behavior, to the sexually exploitative nature of her hubby by her side. A man open to blackmail from almost every corner of the world.

That’s the kind of hope in security she is promising us. Not to leave out the potential provided by Hillary’s own scandalous behavior opening her to blackmail. We’ve already seen how Clintons respond to their scandals. The woman has some nerve lecturing us about Trump’s tweet habits. Which one is a proven problem? Now Bill is the explainer-in-chief which should solve everything. Really?

RightRing | Bullright