Three resign from CNN after Russia story retraction

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
http://thehill.com/media/339564-three-resign-from-cnn-over-russia-story-retraction

Three CNN staffers resigned after the network retracted a story trying a top President Trump ally to a Russian investment bank.

Thomas Frank, the author of the story, Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the CNN investigative unit that ran the story and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN, the network reported Monday.

The story connected Anthony Scaramucci, a top proponent of Trump, to a Russian investment fund run by a bank controlled by the Kremlin.

"In the aftermath of the retraction of a story published on CNN.com, CNN has accepted the resignations of the employees involved in the story's publication," a spokesman said Monday.

An internal CNN investigation reportedly found that normal editorial processes weren’t followed in the story’s editing and publication. Only one anonymous source was used in the story, and typical parts of CNN’s workflow, such as fact checkers, were reportedly not utilized before publication.

Those filled in on the results of the internal investigation were reportedly told that the facts of the story weren’t necessarily wrong, but that the piece wasn’t strong enough to run as is.

CNN, which Trump has frequently derided as "fake news," added strict rules for its Russia coverage following the retraction.

“On June 22, 2017, CNN.com published a story connecting Anthony Scaramucci with investigations into the Russian Direct Investment Fund,” the news organization said in a statement.

“That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted. Links to the story have been disabled. CNN apologizes to Mr. Scaramucci.”

A source close to CNN told BuzzFeed that the story’s publication was a "massive, massive f--- up and people will be disciplined."
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It is being reported that Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamela Harris staff were involved in phony leaks that lead CNN to this disaster. At some point the corrupt media will learn that unnamed sources have agendas and the media outlet better verify the leak before putting it before the public. We have had far too much fake news.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Those filled in on the results of the internal investigation were reportedly told that the facts of the story weren’t necessarily wrong, but that the piece wasn’t strong enough to run as is.

WHAT??!?
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
A source close to CNN told BuzzFeed that the story’s publication was a "massive, massive f--- up and people will be disciplined."
Yep, that's what happens when someone decides to run with a story before it's been cross-checked. Now, even if they do get rock-solid verification, nobody will believe it.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,034
2,208
113
Yep, that's what happens when someone decides to run with a story before it's been cross-checked. Now, even if they do get rock-solid verification, nobody will believe it.
Now maybe they will put UNC on probation!
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
Trump was correct again for calling it 'fake news'...

SCOTUS 9-0 opinion with 3 saying it should be stricter...

He's been proven right on about everything so far...

He'll turn this Trump/Russia thing right back on the dims...
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
“That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards..."

Yikes!

And we all know where those standards are.

 

79eer

Freshman
Oct 4, 2008
8,345
96
48
Don't follow politics too closely, but my guess is Trump has been a boon to CNN for ratings. CNN appears to have become become the leader of the band for those in the Liberal left camp. If it were not for Trump, CNN would most likely finish a good distance behind reruns of the "Beverly Hillbillies".
 
Last edited:

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
SCOTUS 9-0 opinion with 3 saying it should be stricter...
What are you talking about? The travel ban? Pay attention: The 9-0 vote was to hear arguments on it next term. The 6-3 vote was to allow portions of it to be implemented in the meantime instead of leaving the injunctions in place.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,763
113
Don't follow politics too closely, but my guess is Trump has been a boon to CNN for ratings. CNN appears to have become become the leader of the band for those in the Liberal left camp. If it were not for Trump, CNN would most likely finish a good distance behind reruns of the "Beverly Hillbillies".
The "Clinton News Network"? That place has been a liberal ******** for decades.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
What are you talking about? The travel ban? Pay attention: The 9-0 vote was to hear arguments on it next term. The 6-3 vote was to allow portions of it to be implemented in the meantime instead of leaving the injunctions in place.

Disingenuous argument and I believe an incorrect one. The injunction against the ban has been lifted by a 9-0 vote. SCOTUS cited a few categories of people from those 6 countries that can still enter (although their standard is ambiguous at best e.g. bona fide relationship). The fact is the vast majority of people from those countries are temporarily banned. The 4th and 9th rulings were overturned. 3 justices wanted to rule the ban constitutional immediately and the other 6 wanted to hear arguments in the Fall. If this is adjudicated in the Fall, Trump will win again.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,563
152
63
The fact is the vast majority of people from those countries are temporarily banned.
You say that based on what? I'd guess that the majority of people wanting to travel to the U.S. from those countries either have family here, have a job here or are a student here. I have no numbers on that, do you? Please provide this "fact" that you speak of.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
You say that based on what? I'd guess that the majority of people wanting to travel to the U.S. from those countries either have family here, have a job here or are a student here. I have no numbers on that, do you? Please provide this "fact" that you speak of.

My point is that the vast majority of people in those countries have no bona-fide relationships in the U.S. and are thus ineligible for immigration. The exceptions impact the vast minority of people in those 6 countries.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,563
152
63
My point is that the vast majority of people in those countries have no bona-fide relationships in the U.S. and are thus ineligible for immigration. The exceptions impact the vast minority of people in those 6 countries.
So you've got nothing which is what I expected. The exceptions mentioned (having family/acquaintance, job or student) would cover a great many seeking to come here.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
My point is that the vast majority of people in those countries have no bona-fide relationships in the U.S. and are thus ineligible for immigration. The exceptions impact the vast minority of people in those 6 countries.
Excuse the ignorant question, wasn't that the case prior to all this? It wasn't like anyone could just immigrate here.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
So you've got nothing which is what I expected. The exceptions mentioned (having family/acquaintance, job or student) would cover a great many seeking to come here.

You're reaching big time. What percentage of people in those countries are now eligible to immigrate here?

I don't know that percentage but I am certain it is quite small.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Excuse the ignorant question, wasn't that the case prior to all this? It wasn't like anyone could just immigrate here.

No, that was not the case. Everyone in those countries were eligible for immigration. Now, they may not have passed the screening such as it is, but they were all eligible.

Now, the vast majority are not eligible and cannot apply. These are countries with no functioning governments and that support terrorism. How we could reliably check on a potential immigrant's status is almost impossible.
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
The "Clinton News Network"? That place has been a liberal ******** for decades.
Everyone with a pencil became an investigative reporter after Watergate. A decent number of "facts" by the two leads for WaPo improvised a bit. After the initial story was released, nothing printed was questioned. Fox was not there for confirmation - just writer and his conscious? Hell, rock solid 6 o'clock news anchors have been exposed for improvising, but it was not mentioned at the time. It took 20-30 years before they were questioned. The entire Watergate crew would probably not have served time had there been a Fox network to reinforce "And that's the rest of the story".
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,563
152
63
You're reaching big time. What percentage of people in those countries are now eligible to immigrate here?

I don't know that percentage but I am certain it is quite small.
Why would anyone care about the percentage of folks in those countries who don't want to come to the U.S.? We're only interested in those that want to come here. The question I was posing was what percentage of those that are seeking to come to the U.S. from those countries are being turned away now? or being allowed to enter, how ever one wants to say it?
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
No, that was not the case. Everyone in those countries were eligible for immigration. Now, they may not have passed the screening such as it is, but they were all eligible.

Now, the vast majority are not eligible and cannot apply. These are countries with no functioning governments and that support terrorism. How we could reliably check on a potential immigrant's status is almost impossible.
Eligible maybe.....but not likely. I agree with whoever said this was just a fight to rile up both bases, with little actually changing. As an aside, I do hope we continued working on our vetting procedures.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Why would anyone care about the percentage of folks in those countries who don't want to come to the U.S.? We're only interested in those that want to come here. The question I was posing was what percentage of those that are seeking to come to the U.S. from those countries are being turned away now? or being allowed to enter, how ever one wants to say it?

You're trying to spin this into some kind of victory for libs. It is decidedly not. The 4th and 9th rebuked. SCOTUS did not even look at Trump's tweets, only the Executive Order.

The fact is this temporary ban applies to the vast majority of people in all 6 countries. No one has any idea how many wanted to immigrate, that is unknowable. What we do know is that only a very small percentage of the population are eligible to apply.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Eligible maybe.....but not likely. I agree with whoever said this was just a fight to rile up both bases, with little actually changing. As an aside, I do hope we continued working on our vetting procedures.

I think a great deal has changed. Prior to SCOTUS ruling, all people from those 6 countries could apply to immigrate. Since there is no government we can trust, how do we vet them? We know they sponsor terrorism. That has now all changed.

I suspect the 90 day temporary ban will be extended until we figure our some way to ensure we are getting accurate, complete information. Not sure how you do that with no data bases or reliable government in those countries to help.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,563
152
63
You're trying to spin this into some kind of victory for libs.
And you're trying to make this out to be a big victory for Trump and it's a modest one at best. Besides, the vetting review should (be finished by now) be ongoing and finished by the time the SC is back in session and make a review of this case pointless. This was all a political show anyways or Trump would have added countries (Saudi Arabia, et. al.) that have actually sent terrorists to attack the U.S. if he really cared about stopping terrorists. This was all a big show for his base so thanks to Trump for wasting everyone's time.
 
Last edited:

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
I think a great deal has changed. Prior to SCOTUS ruling, all people from those 6 countries could apply to immigrate. Since there is no government we can trust, how do we vet them? We know they sponsor terrorism. That has now all changed.
Sure they could apply, but I don't think their success rate was too high. Whatever. It's not like you can or will ever see anything master Trump does as negative, so it's not like there is any changing your mind. Happy Tuesday!
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Sure they could apply, but I don't think their success rate was too high. Whatever. It's not like you can or will ever see anything master Trump does as negative, so it's not like there is any changing your mind. Happy Tuesday!

I have blasted Trump on the border tax and on tariffs (I support free, fair trade). I do want countries punished that dump products or engage in unfair trade practices or manipulate their currencies to benefit their exports. I also do not like Trump personally. He is arrogant, lacks self control and does too much by the seat of his pants. But I acknowledge that I like many of his other policies.

You on the other hand seem to hate everything Trump does.