CNN This Morning criticized the censureship of Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff (CA) on Thursday, calling it “an expression of animosity” caused by too much “free time” in the House of Representatives. CNN portrayed the House as unjust and Schiff as a political victim instead of the purveyor of false accusations against former President Trump.
Republican representatives censured Schiff for falsely accusing and attempting to discredit Trump. Schiff repeatedly claimed he possessed copious amounts evidence that Trump colluded with Russia and appeared in mainstream media to promote these claims. Schiff never produced the evidence due to alleged security reasons, but in reality, he had none to show.
CNN previously presented Schiff’s false accusations as fact, but, despite the embarrassment of airing misinformation, CNN defended Schiff when Republicans removed him from the Intelligence Committee and again when they censured him. Instead, CNN fell into the ad hominem fallacy: attacking Republicans and ignoring Schiff’s deception.
Independent Journalist Josh Borro explained his view of the censureship:
Once you have this extreme acrimony there, and then also I, you know, Adam Schiff has been particularly driving Republicans crazy. A lot of them, I think, really think that he has been leaking stuff to the media through this process. And so, I think that, you know that, it was an expression of that animosity, but it really doesn’t go beyond that.
Indeed, Schiff’s fabrications frustrated many Republicans. However, CNN acted as if this justified frustration discredited the Republicans’ actions. CNN refused to address the validity of Schiff’s disinformation and painted him as the victim of Republican animosity, all to avoid admitting they peddled false hoods about Trump.
“It doesn’t have any force beside being a statement,” Borro added as consolation.
“It's indicative of what they choose to spend their time on and energy on, et cetera,” Host Poppy Harrow said, as if disciplining Schiff was a gross misuse of time. Borro agreed:
The House sort of has a lot of time that it can't really do very much with other than political messaging. And so, Republicans are deciding among passing pieces of legislation that won't become law or passing statements like this censure that don't have the force of law. And so I think, partly, you know, why they spend time on this is that their opportunity cost is not that high. They have free time because they're not otherwise going to achieve that much this year.
Again, Borro dodged discussing Schiff’s disinformation and attributed the censure to Republican boredom. CNN preferred speculating about negative Republican motives to admitting a Democrat’s mistake.
Unsurprisingly, CNN failed to ask Republicans for their perspective or provide any point of view that would negatively affect Democrats.
Custom Ink sponsored CNN’s anti-Republican Coverage.
The Transcript is below, click "expand" to read.
CNN This Morning
6/22/2023
6:18 AM EasternPHIL MATTINGLY: The House, as Poppy noted, not in order. Those were House Democrats, you saw, gathered together chanting “shame” after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced the vote to formally censure Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. Now this is why I think the context matters. It's only the third time this century that a member of Congress has been censured. Members of the GOP Freedom Caucus led the charge to punish Schiff for his role in investigating Donald Trump during the last four, five, six years. The censure resolution alleges that Schiff misled the American public by spreading false accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Joining us now to discuss is the author of the Very Serious newsletter on Substack, it’s both the title and the reality of that newsletter –
POPPY HARLOW: And the man – and the man.
MATTINGLY: And the man himself, the one and only – the one and only Josh Barro.
JOSHUA BARRO: Good morning.
HARLOW: Hi, you can still drink your water. You can take a sip.
BARRO: That’s okay, it’s all right.
MATTINGLY: Here is what I'm struck by—
BARRO: Yeah.
MATTINGLY: -- as somebody who covered the House for more than a decade. Censures used to be: bridge way too far. Only the most serious -- and it was a massive, massive issue, massive news element, leadership never wanted to go that far unless they absolutely had to. Yesterday kinda felt a little bit like, a “heh.” Why?
BARRO: Yeah, well, I mean it has no actual force of law –
MATTINGLY: Right.
BARRO: I mean, this is a statement by, you know, 213 members of the House of Representatives that they disapprove of what Adam Schiff did, and they think he did a very bad thing. And that’s, it's a political statement that is not that different from going on television and saying that, you know, and raising these objections to Adam Schiff.
And so I think that you know that, it was a norm of the institution that they didn't do this very much, but once that norm has changed and once you have this extreme acrimony there, and then also I, you know, Adam Schiff has been particularly driving Republicans crazy. A lot of them, I think, really think that he has been leaking stuff to the media through this process. And so, I think that, you know that, it was an expression of that animosity, but it really doesn’t go beyond that. There's no material consequences for Adam Schiff. I mean they already moved him, removed him from the Intelligence Committee. But, it doesn’t have any force beside being a statement–
HARLOW: Yeah, but it's indicative of what they choose to spend their time on and energy on, et cetera.
BARRO: Yeah.
HARLOW: And it is, the question I think is, is it censure today, impeachment tomorrow? I mean, McCarthy had to fight off calls from people like Congresswoman Lauren Boebert for impeachment. Listen to what he said about, you know, it being too premature for something like that. Here he was.
[clip begins]
KEVIN MCCARTHY: To prematurely bring something up like that, to have no background in it, it undercuts what we're doing. [break] Look, this is probably one of the most important things members of Congress has a right to do and to take it in a flippant way – to just put something privileged on the floor like that. [break] These investigations will follow the information we get wherever it will take us.
[clip ends]
HARLOW: To be clear, he's talking about calls to impeach Joe -- the president, Joe Biden there.
BARRO: Right.
HARLOW: But I think our analysis this morning from our colleague Zach Wolf is really interesting because he quotes Kevin McCarthy as asking of those who want to see impeachment, for example, “what majority do we want to be? Give it right back in two years or hold it for a decade and make real change?” But it also shows his vulnerability given all the concessions he made to become speaker.
BARRO: Yeah, I mean, first of all, it’s interesting to me he cited that history about, you know, we’ve taken the majority five times and twice we gave it back in two years.
HARLOW: Yeah.
BARRO: I mean, that was in 1948 and 1954. So that’s pretty long ago history, those one-term majorities. But I think, you know, that when you ask about it being indicative of how the House is spending its time.
We have a divided Congress and there's a Democratic president, so they needed to raise the debt limit. They will need to pass government funding bills sometime probably before the end of the calendar year. Technically, the fiscal year will run out at the end of September. But, other than that, there isn't a really large, robust policy agenda to actually be passed through both houses of Congress and be enacted.
The Senate has lots of nominations to act on. It can, it can confirm judges and members of the cabinet and that sort of thing. The House sort of has a lot of time that it can't really do very much with other than political messaging. And so, Republicans are deciding among passing pieces of legislation that won't become law or passing statements like this censure that don't have the force of law. And so I think, partly, you know, why they spend time on this is that their opportunity cost is not that high. They have free time because they're not otherwise going to achieve that much this year.
MATTINGLY: And they apparently loathe Adam Schiff so much they're trying to ensure he's a U.S. Senator next year to some degree.
[…]
