The Federalist was kind enough to supply what it says is complete list (it’s not, but never mind). The details are here, the unethical hacks are below.
When I point this kind of thing out to my usually intelligent, Trump-Deranged relative, the responses are:
- “You keep saying the news media is biased and untrustworthy. Not ALL the reporters claimed that Trump said that!”
- “Besides, that’s probably what he meant anyway.”
- “So what? You know Trump has said that he wants to punish Liz Cheney!”
- “Fox News exaggerates what Democrats say all the time!”
- “Why are you always defending Trump?”
Here’s the list:
CNN anchor Kasie Hunt
CNN’s Eric Bradner
CNN’s Jim Acosta
Politico’s Andrew Howard
Politico bureau chief Jonathan Lemire
CNN’s Kate Sullivan
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake
Reuters reporter Andy Sullivan
Reuters reporter Susan Heavey
National Review’s Jim Geraghty
Politico Senior Political Columnist Jonathan Martin
Rolling Stone reporter Nikki McCann Ramirez
I know the Federalist missed a few and maybe more than a few, like those mentioned in the Ethics Alarms post yesterday such as Joe Scarborough (The Federalist may not consider MSNBC worth counting, and that’s defensible). As far as I know, Goldberg is the only one who apologized, and a weaselly apology it was.
I’m sure the rest will say that they were just trying to save democracy, and how can you fault them for that?
BOY these people deserve to lose…
Ethics Alarms 
This had to known to them as false because their only defense would be that they are illiterate. The question is was there malice. Only if they can prove illiteracy can they say the report had no malicious intent.
Trump filed a suit against CBS for editing that Harris answer – which I think was ill considered on his part. However, this outright lie was done with malice in my opinion and he should sue each and everyone. Then let the defendants out the originator of the lie.
I was thinking about a six on the apology scale. What would you rate it Jack? I give him the benefit of getting out in front of it quick, admiting he hadn’t heard it, but then again still blaming Trump for his own mistake.
Now he is being accused of simulating oral sex with a microphone. There will be one or two a day for the next week, until the voting is over.
Trying to convince people that what Trump said is being misrepresented, and deliberately so, by the Democrats and their media advocates is like pulling teeth.
My sister is not an unintelligent person. She is a professor in her specialized field at a good university. Yesterday, she posted that she would be imprisoned if she said what Trump did about Liz Cheney.
I posted the quote as posted on EA and pointed out that it was not any different than what Democrats have been arguing since Vietnam whenever troops are committed to overseas conflicts, only said in Trump’s usually sloppy way. She countered that Trump has never served, that he is a coward and that sloppiness is an excuse. I maintained that whether Trump did or didn’t serve is irrelevant to this issue. I asked her if she didn’t see that the quote demonstrated that Trump didn’t threaten Cheney at all and that it was being misrepresented deliberately as if he did.
Again, all I got in response were Trump-deranged accusations, followed by an admission that she and I will not agree and that she loves me. I told her that I love her, too, and that we will not agree on this, but that my point was that hate and misinformation is not just coming from one side.
It’s almost as if they can’t see it as opposed to won’t see it.
Does your sister understand she will never be conscripted to serve in the killing fields? Further, nor will Harris be obligated to serve. Obama, Biden or nor either Clinton serve in the armed forces so as far as I’m concerned the only one who has the right to call someone a war hawk is the one who avoids war. It is unfortunate that this sort of blindness does not elevate other senses.
Of course, she knows this. She would argue this if it were Harris, Obama and Clinton.
She can’t see past Trump. None of them can.
Trump was Commander in Chief. It was his job to send men to die for their country. He, of all people, should understand this point. As Commander in Chief, he did not start a bunch of wars and send young men to die. He tried to bring them home. Calling him a hypocrite is blind hatred.
Will there be any Nick Sandmannesque lawsuits?
PWS
The media certainly appear to have cast off any shackles they may have had controlling them.