Mistake-prone ABC News reporter doesn't report in

He's nowhere to be found. ABC News' chief investigative (LOL--he investigates like Barack Obama leads) correspondent, Brian Ross, was scheduled to return to work Thursday after being suspended for a huge screwup regarding an "exclusive" report on President Trump and Russia.

Ross was put on a 4-week unpaid suspension after incorrectly reporting on live TV that fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would be testifying that Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians about foreign policy while he was still a candidate. The stock market fell over 300 points after the announcement, losing billions of dollars for American investors, and it raised the specter of Trump's impeachment.

Except that it didn't because it wasn't true.

ABC was forced to retract the report and ABC News President James Goldston said on a conference call that he'd never felt more "rage, disappointment and frustration" in his entire career, and that Ross would never cover Trump again. 

It isn't clear if the disappointment was in the incompetency of Ross or that Trump didn't contact the Russians concerning foreign policy . . . or both.

An ABC News spokesperson wouldn't comment as to whether Ross will ever be returning to ABC at all.

When Ross was suspended, Trump told a Florida crowd that Ross should be fired and that he will build a wall. 

"They took this fraudster from ABC," Trump said. "They suspended him for a month. They should have fired him for what he wrote. He drove the stock market down 350 points in minutes, which, by the way, tells you they really like me right? When you think of it, and you know what he cost people? And I said to everybody get yourself a lawyer and sue ABC News, sue them."

I don't think Trump should be telling companies what to do. Sure, Ross is a screwup, but it isn't the job of the president to get involved with all the minutiae in the world or "punch down" whenever he's attacked verbally. This is what drives conservatives crazy.

Ross tweeted that his job "is to hold people accountable," and noted "That's why I agree with being held accountable myself."

And if he didn't hold himself accountable? How would that have played out?

Ross has screwed up before and was never held accountable. In 2001 he incorrectly reported that Saddam Hussein's regime may have been responsible for anthrax attacks that terrorize the United States following 9/11. 

In 2006, he reported that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert was a target of a federal corruption probe involving Jack Abramoff. But Hastert was never approached by prosecutors, proving Ross wrong again, and again, no apology.

Besides this latest flub, the one that comes almost as close is the where in 2012, Ross reported that Colorado theater shooter James Holmes may have had ties to the Tea Party movement.

"There is a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the tea party last year," the fake news reporter reported on "Good Morning America." He went on, "Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes--but this is Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado."

Really, what an ass.

He was called "America's Wrongest Reporter" by Gawker, a now-defunct website.

"When there's breaking news, especially about terrorism and national security, ABC News' Brian Ross is there," wrote John Cook on Gawker. "And under no circumstances should you listen to anything he says."

So let's hope he's gone for good.



Tweet

Hillary tries to block the first Jewish POTUS

If you were able to watch the Democratic "debate" on PBS on Thursday, you may have come to the conclusion that the Hillary fix is obviously in.

First of all, one of the moderators asked a question tied to the Vietnam war. According to Gawker, a live mic caught one of them sighing, "Oh God," as Sanders began his answer. The moderator may as well have done a "Candy Crowley" and helped the candidate of her choice with the debate. (You may recall how Crowley came to Obama's aid when Romney posed a tough question to him.)

Judy Woodruff, one of the moderators, has donated to the Clinton Foundation--that should have been either disqualified her as a moderator, or at the very least, made public at the outset of the debate as full disclosure.

But this was a Democratic debate, so who are we kidding?

Another interesting point that should dispel any doubts that the fix was in to support Clinton is the fact that on the very day of the debate, subpoenas were issued by the State Department to a family foundation bearing Hillary's name as part of the ongoing federal investigation. Nothing, not a word was asked about this to Clinton.

So it's okay to ask GOP candidates tough questions, like those asked of Trump and Cruz regarding bankruptcies of the former, and a loan from Goldman Sachs to the latter, but the media throws cotton balls at Clinton.

It isn't that the public isn't interested in what may turn out to be indictable chicanery by Clinton. Facebook and other social media pegged the meter over the news about the Clinton Foundation, and yet, nothing was asked about it in spite of the fact that subpoenas were issued by the State Department.

Even Bernie Sanders seems to be unwilling to effectively attack Hillary. When Woodruff asked him how he would feel if he blocked the election of the first woman president, his answer was as weak as his "enough about the damn emails." 

He should have said something like: "And why is it okay for Mrs. Clinton to block the election of the first Jew?"

But he didn't . . . and he won't.

The fix is in and journalism is dead.


Tweet

Hillary camp "blackmails" journalist

I believe the U.S. Constitution has something to say about freedom of the press. Oh yeah, I believe the First Amendment deals with that. That whole freedom of speech thing that includes the press.

Will someone please tell that to Hillary Clinton's campaign staff? Blackmailing reporters by allowing them special "perks" in exchange for flattering coverage of Hillary Clinton goes against the fabric of the nation.

Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Gawker gained access to an exchange of emails between a Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines and Marc Ambinder, who writes for The Atlantic magazine. 

On July 15, 2009, Ambinder asked Reines for an advanced transcript of a speech Clinton was to give at the Council on Foreign Relations. Reines agreed to supply the speech with three conditions, to which Ambinder agreed.

They were: "1) You in your own voice describe them [Clinton's remarks] as 'muscular' 2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys--from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Rose--will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say [is] certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something 3) You don't say your were blackmailed."

Ambinder was then able to use the speech and scoop rival media, but admitted to Gawker that he had a problem with the whole thing. Perhaps the problem had something to do with ethics and, um, freedom of the press. 

Sadly, this has become the norm with the press. They, like many politicians and athletes, will do anything to win, even cheating. And they no longer see how such a win isn't really a win at all.


Tweet