CNN Previews What ‘Fact Checking’ Would Look Like in a Kamala Harris Administration
“This is kind of cleverly flamed-framed, Jake, as a prediction which I cannot definitively fact check, but VP Harris at least left out some important context here.” — Daniel Dale
So-called fact-checkers have become infamous over the last decade or so for being just as bad if not worse than their media colleagues in playing favorites and displaying overt bias when it comes to checking (and not checking) the claims of public officials.
CNN‘s Daniel Dale is arguably the worst of the bunch, with his infamous declaration during a 2020 CNN town hall featuring Joe Biden that Biden was fact-checking Donald Trump by stringing together a few coherent sentences taking the cake:
Biden is implicitly fact checking Trump by…uttering many consecutive coherent sentences, which Trump has repeatedly said Biden cannot do. https://t.co/LzS2Bx7ioq
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) September 18, 2020
There was also this shameful moment from a 2020 debate between Biden and Donald Trump, where we learned that while Biden was simply “imperfect” from a “fact-checking perspective” Trump was a “serial liar”:
Biden was again imperfect from a fact check perspective. He made at least a few false, misleading, or lacking-in-context claims.
Trump was, as usual, a serial liar.
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) October 23, 2020
Back to the present day, Dale appeared on his network Thursday night after Vice President Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech at the Democrat National Convention.
During the segment, he was asked about some of the claims Harris made. Laughably, he declared that “there weren’t a lot of fact-checkable claims tonight, period” before suggesting that some of them merely lacked context and that because they were Harris’ “predictions” he couldn’t really fact-check them:
Jake, there weren’t a lot of fact-checkable claims tonight, period. But let’s look at some comments Vice President Harris made in her big speech. First, this claim about former President Donald Trump and abortion.
[…]
This is kind of cleverly flamed- framed, Jake, as a prediction which I cannot definitively fact check, but VP Harris at least left out some important context here. What she did not explain is that Trump has either not taken those positions during this campaign, or explicitly rejected those positions.
[…]
Now let’s play something Vice President Harris said about the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
HARRIS: Consider. Consider the power he will have, especially after the United States Supreme Court just ruled that he would be immune from criminal prosecution. Just imagine Donald Trump with no guard rails.
DALE: I call- I call this a “needs context” too, Jake. It’s fair for Vice President Harris to generally warn that the Supreme Court ruling gave presidents more power, but it did not grant Trump or anyone else total immunity from criminal prosecution.
So he can’t “definitively fact check” claims Harris made about Trump’s abortion position, which Dale essentially later said were not true, and “the Supreme Court ruling gave presidents more power” (newsflash: it didn’t).
Watch:
WATCH: CNN's Daniel Dale weasels out fact-checking Kamala Harris's acceptance speech by saying that her two demonstrably false claims needed context pic.twitter.com/quAKvXJlmY
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) August 23, 2024
While Harris’ speech was a pretty forgettable one in my opinion, one other thing that deserved fact-checking but didn’t get it was her insane claim that Trump “sent an armed mob to the U.S. Capitol” on January 6, 2021.
It’s simply not true, but because the media, like Democrats, have such a vested interest in keeping J6 in the spotlight going into the fall campaign season, it doesn’t get scrutinized.
In any event, thanks to Daniel Dale for reminding us once again that when it comes to covering up for Democrats, few are so obvious about it as KNN CNN.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Their credibility is on the same level as Honest John’s Used Cars.
Cripple Town Used Cars – where nobody walks away, guaranteed!
Honest John has FAR more credibility.
I’d buy a car from him before I’d buy one from either Daniel Dale or Kamala Harris.
The same as Joe Isuzu.
I object on behalf of Honest John, who as far as I know has done nothing to deserve being compared to the Communist Party…..I mean Democrats.
News is not news. It’s narrative entertainment for people who want that narrative to live in. It’s analogous to women in the 60s living in the tabloid accounts of the trials of Liz and Richard. It’s their choice of what they want to live in.
Isn’t it odd how the one honest fact checker the Washington Post had was fired after a year, more or less of service….and another put in his place who understood his role was Democrat propaganda…not real fact checking.
And then there is this:
_______________
“Washington Post columnist Meghan McArdle ripped the community of fact-checkers who have tried to hold former President Trump accountable during his political career, admitting they’ve ultimately failed to hamper his support and have hurt their own institutions.
The author, a staunch critic of Trump, accused those of trying to prevent the spread of Trump’s “disinformation” of being arrogant and mistaking their own opinion with objective fact. She even accused them of censorship. All of this, she wrote, has ultimately led to voters questioning them and other institutions more than they’ve ever questioned the former president.
“After eight years of all-out disinformation warfare, Trump’s approval ratings are holding up better than public trust in academia and journalism,” McArdle lamented.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/washington-post-columnist-admits-fact-checkers-were-ineffective-in-trump-era-confused-opinion-with-fact/ar-AA1p0vVu?ocid=BingNewsSerp
All sane people know that Trump is given to exaggeration. He has the mind of a salesman.
So that aspect is disregarded by sane people. The Fact Checkers on the other hand have consistently lied, out and out lied, for the last 20 years.
They engaged in such disregard of the truth, that major papers and news organizations all across the internet have rewritten headlines and stories of years ago to hide their dangerously duplicitous practices. In much the same manner the deep state that feeds the lies to these “news” agents does the same.
Say what you will about CNN, but it’s been a start for a few fiction and fantasy writers.
Democrats Propaganda Ministry keeps rolling along
censorship is what lefty is all about
What he said was that she cleverly worded her claim in the form of a prediction, so it can’t be fact-checked. He said that she didn’t make any explicit claim about Trump’s abortion position, but she implied things that weren’t true.
But it did, by confirming that presidents have immunity at least for core official acts, and possibly for all official acts; that’s more than we knew for sure before the decision, so it did slightly increase the president’s power. Not by finding total immunity, but Harris never explicitly claimed that, she merely implied it, so he said he couldn’t fact-check her actual words, but her implication was false.
Presidents before Trump always had that immunity. What changed was Trump.
Not true. No president until now has ever had judicially confirmed immunity. They may have believed they would be immune, or hoped they would be immune, but there was nothing in writing anywhere supporting it and no court had ever confirmed that, so it was all speculative and tentative.
A few weeks ago, a president charged with a crime for a core official function would have had to go to court and argue that the court should recognize a new immunity. Now he can simply demonstrate that the charge involves a core function and the court has no choice but to dismiss the prosecution,
Therefore objectively Biden has more power now than he had a few weeks ago.
Not only did the previous President believe they had such immunity, the body politic also believed they possessed such immunity and no President had previously been criminally challenged on issues which broached such possible immunity. For all intents and purposed the previous Presidents possessed such immunity and one could make the argument that the assumed immunity was greater than the immunity validated by the SCOTUS.
This is just absurdly incorrect little fella 😂😂
Absolutely every President before Trump had immunity and the proof of this is that none of those previous modern day Presidents faced the same level of Democrat juridical harassment as they sought out ever more “ingenious” ways of not just removing him from the Presidency but also from stopping him running again.
If your head wasn’t shoved so far up your own arse you’d be able to see what’s right in front of you 😂
Bulldust. No previous president has been prosecuted, not because they had immunity but because none even arguably committed any crime in office for which they could potentially have been prosecuted, so they didn’t need immunity.
You’ve totally forgotten Richard Nixon.
SCoTUS rules Constitution says president can do his job. Milhouse claims power increases.
Film at 11.
Presidents never had that immunity before. Therefore their power has increased.
It’s not as if there’s anything actually in the constitution about immunity.
justice Millhouse knows all 😂😂
Have you got an argument against it? Or are you just slinging abuse?