Does CNN even know what Without Evidence means?

Without Evidence

Today, CNN — the network that has been flogging Bob Woodward’s book of “anonymous sources” — had the temerity to issue this tweet:

Um. Without evidence?

The text messages themselves are the evidence, you prats.

Honestly, does CNN even know what without evidence means?

President Trump could hold up a smoking gun and CNN would declare, “President finds smoking gun, but provides no evidence that the smoke isn’t just from a nearby cigarette.”

But they love the phrase “without evidence.”

Back in March of 2017 when President Trump accused the Obama Administration of spying on his campaign and transition (something we now know is true), CNN was one of many outlets that was quick to tell us he did so without evidence.

And despite the countless examples of voter fraud, CNN – not to mention pretty much everyone else in the news media — maintains that any accusations of voter fraud are made without evidence.

Keep in mind, this is the same cable news outfit that has flogged the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy for two years now despite the lack of any evidence that there was Trump/Russia collusion.

This is the same news outfit that is hawking Bob Woodward’s book as inarguably true despite the fact that his so-called sources are all anonymous and people quoted in the book keep releasing statements saying quotes attributed to them are false.

So now we know that Strzok and Page were texting plans to selectively leak information to the press, and CNN once again bellows “WITHOUT EVIDENCE!!!!”

There is far more evidence of FBI and DOJ efforts to undermine the duly-elected President than there has ever been that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

CNN’s supposed concern for evidence is kind of negated by their own shoddy, correction-filled reporting. Is it not?

As I said back in March of 2017, stating as fact things for which there is no evidence is standard operating procedure at not just CNN, but virtually every mainstream “news” outlet.

It’s why they’re promoting every outlandish claim made by the opportunistic Omarosa or the thoroughly discredited Michael Avenatti.

It’s why CNN fought tooth and nail not to retract their story based on Lanny Davis’ admitted lies.

Slander, innuendo, anonymous sourcing – these are CNN’s bread and butter so long as reporting slander, innuendo and anonymous sources hurt President Trump.

Yet text messages between two corrupt FBI officials in which they plan illegal media leaks are not considered evidence to these morons.

Facts first? Really?

Since turnabout is fair play, permit me to be the first to say that CNN claims, without evidence, that they are Facts First.

Hit the Tip Jar!

Every dollar makes a difference! Hit the DONATE button in the side bar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE. If you cannot afford to contribute, please whitelist in your ad-blocker. Ads help pay for this site. And, as a promise to you, the ads are not obnoxious or overbearing and will never interfere with your enjoyment of

Share, share, share

2 thoughts on “Does CNN even know what Without Evidence means?

  • September 12, 2018 at 11:40 am

    At this point, who do you think is worse, CNN or Obama?

    • September 13, 2018 at 9:05 pm

      They are one in the same. THE BORG.

Comments are closed.