CNN Accuses Florida Student Cited By President As Lying About Scripted Question

200px-Cnn.svgColton Haab, a survivor of last week’s mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has appeared on national television to voice his allegation that CNN tried to get him to read a scripted question at the network’s recent Town Hall event with survivors and leading politicians.  The allegation led President Donald Trump to tweet that CNN had been caught in an act of “fake news.” Now however CNN has posted the original email and accused Haab of “doctoring” the emails and lying about its exchange with its producer.  If CNN is doctoring the emails (which is unlikely), Haab could sue for defamation.  However, the network says that critical language was removed by Haab or his family.


Haab accused CNN of rejecting his question and his statement before giving him a scripted question.  He then refused to attend. This led to appearances on Fox News and this tweet from President Trump and a fast denial by:


“School shooting survivor says he quit @CNN Town Hall after refusing scripted question.” @TuckerCarlson. Just like so much of CNN, Fake News. That’s why their ratings are so bad! MSNBC may be worse.

There is absolutely no truth to this story — and we can prove that. CNN did not provide or script questions for anyone in last night’s town hall, nor have we ever. Those are the facts. 🍎


Screen Shot 2018-02-24 at 7.41.01 AM

CNN then released the original email:

Screen Shot 2018-02-24 at 7.39.20 AM


According to Business Insider, CNN and Haab agreed on the question but there was a disagreement over a lengthy statement that he wanted to give.

CNN is now accusing the Haabs of lying in “an effort to discredit CNN and the town hall with doctored emails has taken any attention away from the purpose of the event.”

The key missing language of the emails to the father, Glenn Haab, saying “This is what Colton and I discussed on the phone that he submitted.”  Those last words did not appear in the Haabs version released to the media.

It is a truly sad and rather bizarre story.  It is not clear how the Haabs would not believe that CNN would release the original email or why those critical words could be removed without a nefarious purpose.

Obviously, if CNN is lying, the Haabs have a major defamation case.  If the original email is accurate (and again I have no reason to question its authenticity), the Haabs need to explain the discrepancy.  They could still argue that the CNN email did not capture the prior communications but the threshold question remains the omitted words.

The original emails explains to the father that time is limited and that they are sticking to what they previously discussed.  The family could have felt censored in the denial of the opportunity to read the longer statement, but that does not explain the alleged changing of the email (which the family used as critical evidence to support its claim). The family declined to speak with the Washington Post on the CNN released email.

This is a teenage boy in the aftermath of a great trauma and loss.  He should never have found himself in this media maelstrom.  However, the national accusations followed by the President’s tweet raised a serious allegation of false dealing by CNN and a staged event.

What do you think?


168 thoughts on “CNN Accuses Florida Student Cited By President As Lying About Scripted Question”

  1. It wouldn’t surprise me if CNN lied – but I’ll wait until more comes out.

    OT – Two reporters from The New Yorker & Rolling Stone note the beating people take when ethical journalists question the Russia Russia Russia narrative:

    “A So-Called Expert’s Uneasy Dive Into the Trump-Russia Frenzy”

    Is it possible to express skepticism about the impact of Kremlin interference in the 2016 election without the Internet turning you into a pro-Trump propagandist?

    “#Russiagate Skeptics Take a Beating”

    “Skepticism of any kind has become verboten, which is a problem for reporters because it’s our job to be skeptical.”

  2. When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff’s deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

    If true, then did they not receive the same post-Columbine training that every other LE entity received? If they had, then were they not committed to it? And if they were, then who told them to stand down?

  3. Off Topic: Billy Graham.s countless obituaries remind us today, Billy Graham knew every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama; he was a White House visitor for decades. The Southern Baptist preacher known as “To begin though, i will do a song;: It is based on the Country Joe and Fish song, called Vietnam.

    Don’t ask me I don’t give a Graham. Next stop is Viet Nam!
    And its five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates…
    Ain’t no time to wonder why…
    Whoopee we”re all gonna die.\\

    He is the news excerpt:America’s pastor” was by turns counselor, confessor and confidant to chief executives from both parties.

    The first visit, to Truman in 1950, did not go well. When Graham and fellow evangelists revealed the details of their conversation, and staged a prayer session on the White House lawn, Truman labeled him a “counterfeit,” seeing him as more a publicity-seeking opportunist than a pastor. But Graham persisted, seeing the national stage as possibly his biggest chance to influence America’s spiritual life—and even the course of the nation’s history.

    Across the decades, he gained unique access to the power centers of American life. Publishing magnates William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce helped propel him to fame; financial and business leaders saw his message as a powerful antidote to the appeals of “socialistic” politics, while more liberal political figures saw the benefits of bonding with America’s favorite religious figure. More and more, Graham came to embody the tension between the spiritual necessity of speaking Biblical truth to power, and the compromises required by access to power itself.

    In this regard, of all Graham’s White House visits, none was more intriguing—and revealing—than the one he made on September 8, 1968.

    This was a visit with a message to President Lyndon B. Johnson from one of the two men battling to succeed him. And it reveals just how much Graham, the most prominent religious figure of his time, was pulled in by the temptations of temporal power. At the time, Richard Nixon was the Republican presidential nominee, with a good chance of taking the White House away from a Democratic Party deeply divided over the war in Vietnam. His relationship with Graham stretched back decades; Nixon’s militant Cold War anticommunism had been a perfect match with Graham’s “Christianity vs. Communism” message of the 1950s and ’60s.

    And the message Graham brought was tailormade for a president plagued by doubts over the war, and about his place in history.

    Nixon wants to you to know, Graham told LBJ, that he greatly admires all of your hard work; you are, he said, “the hardest working president in 140 years.” He told Johnson that if Nixon won and ended the Vietnam War, he would give Johnson “a major share of credit” for a settlement and would “do everything to make you … a place in history.”

    For his part, Johnson promised Nixon his full cooperation should he win the White House.

    It was a message unlike anything out of our political past: the nominee of the opposition party sending a trusted envoy with words of admiration, and the promise of a kinder judgment from history.

    It was a message destined to fall on receptive ears. LBJ’s unhappiness with Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey—his own vice president—was an open secret in Washington. He was convinced that Nixon was closer to him on Vietnam than Humphrey; so much so that Defense Secretary Clark Clifford came to believe that LBJ actually wanted Nixon to win.

    Why would Billy Graham, of all people, have been selected to deliver this most sensitive of political messages? In fact, there were good reasons.

    There were strong ties between Johnson and Graham; a scheduled five-minute meeting shortly after JFK’s assassination stretched for five hours, and Johnson had often turned to Graham for spiritual strength. And Graham’s ties to Richard Nixon were stronger. In 1960, when he wrote John F. Kennedy to assure him—misleadingly—that he was not going to use JFK’s Roman Catholicism against him, he also wrote that he would likely vote for Nixon because of longstanding personal bonds. In using Graham as his emissary, Nixon knew that Johnson would receive him as a messenger he could trust. He’d know with absolute certainty that Graham was faithfully delivering Nixon’s assurances.

    Only someone with a claim to stand outside of politics, someone with a cloak of spiritual respectability, could be trusted with so unusual a test. It is hard to imagine such a message being delivered by, say, an emissary of the Republican Party or Nixon’s campaign.

    But of course the message wasn’t outside of politics at all: It was deeply political, even opportunistic, and, as we know now, factually dubious. It was later revealed that Nixon’s campaign was actually working to undermine a peace initiative.

    It is one example of just how much “America’s pastor” was a staunch political ally of one particular American, Richard Nixon. At the 1969 inaugural, Graham delivered a prayer that read, in part: “We recognize, O Lord, that in Thy sovereignty Thou has permitted Richard Nixon to lead us at this momentous hour of our history”—a sentiment that sounded to some as if he was asserting that Nixon was God’s choice. His support for the war in Vietnam was so enthusiastic that on April 15,1969, after meeting with missionaries from Vietnam, Graham sent a memo to the White House urging that, if the peace talks in Paris failed, Nixon should bomb the dikes that held back floodwaters in the North. This, said Graham, “could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” It would also have destroyed countless villages, sending as many as a million civilians to their deaths.

    He became even more instrumental to Nixon, moving well beyond spiritual counselor. In 1972, he peppered the White House with memos on everything from campaign strategy to stagecraft.

    His most infamous “bonding” with Nixon happened in 1972, when a White House conversation turned to the subject of Jewish domination of the media. Nixon was a notorious anti-Semite—a fact that became clearer after the Watergate tapes—and Graham played to the president’s prejudices with enthusiasm. He called that alleged media control “a stranglehold,” mused about “doing something about it” in a second Nixon term, and added, “A lot of Jews are great friends of mine,’’ Graham said. ”They swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them.”

    ”You must not let them know,” Nixon replied.

    These repellent remarks may well indicate a core of anti-Semitism; but they can also be read as Graham’s effort to curry favor with Nixon by feeding his darker impulses, much as Henry Kissinger did throughout Nixon’s White House tenure. That reading, in turn, tells us much about the willingness, even eagerness, of a spiritual guide to preserve his access to temporal power. Had Graham chastised Nixon for such views, or even declined to endorse them, it might have made him more of a spiritual shepherd, but lessened Graham’s access to the inner circles of power.

    Late in life, Graham came to view his choices differently. In a 2011 interview with Christianity Today, he said, “I … would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back, I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”

    He also spoke in very different terms about international matters, strongly endorsing efforts toward disarmament, was open about the idea that Christianity might not be the only road to salvation, and distanced himself from the Moral Majority and other manifestations of the Religious Right.

    But the road Billy Graham took during his prime raises a fascinating question: What if Graham, with his undeniable magnetism, had chosen a different path? What if his insistence on integrated religious gatherings—a provocative posture in the South of the 1950s— had been accompanied by a forthright campaign for integration in schools, and in a campaign for the vote? What if he had found the boardrooms and offices of the political elite less appealing than the injunction to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?” We might have been remembering him as we do another Southern minister, who led a life 60 years shorter, but who moved mountains.
    When some person lives to age 99 then they need to be remembered. But not revered. The American Media is revering this person. Here is some information on the bad aspects of Graham.

    uckGay Graham on the ooyhae.

  4. Another post by JT to throw smoke and cover for NOT posting about the very legal problems with Trump. And if JT does post something, it’s picking nat shit out of pepper, to put doubt and questions about Mueller. His MO is very clear to see. You do not have to be a lawyer to see that the feds are closing in fast and are clearing the weeds to see the greener grass on the other side of the hill. As for CNN, they have become infotainment. Check the info with other sources first, never rely on a single source for ANY reports.

      1. Backpedaling from what? I have never liked CNN from the time Zucker turned CNN into infotainment from his days and years at The Today Show. And for JT, well ….Res Ides Loquitur.

  5. What is clear is that CNN is using children for ratings. Even they admit that they contacted children, talked about what children might write and/or say, and set up a “townhall”. CNN didn’t do this because they care. They did it for ratings, meaning money.

    After all, this is the same CNN who gave debate questions to their preferred presidential candidate. They are on the record with asking scripted interview questions given to them by the fellow (but more powerful) oligarchic overlords. They have been caught in numerous lies and there is reason to suspect them of not lying in any given situation. They have a consistent track record of lies and BS. That said, this could be one time they aren’t lying. That’s going to have to be worked out by lawyers.

    Still, it’s painfully obvious that they don’t care about this young person. They could handle this situation in a different, kinder way (but that would mean they’d need to be sincere and actually care about him). All they had to say is: here is what we had discussed. Somehow there has been a misunderstanding. We are very sorry if our actions contributed to that misunderstanding. More importantly, we are so sorry that this young person went through a terrible and extremely traumatic ordeal. We do not want to make things worse for him or his parents, therefore, we will not discuss this issue further in public. We remain open to giving support and resolving any misunderstandings with this young person and his family in private.

    However, what I have seen with CNN is the most disgusting behavior towards ordinary people. They were badgering a Trump supporter, accusing her of possibly working and or knowing Russians (so what?) due to the famous 13 Trolls under a bridge indictment by R. Muller. I watched that grotesque ratings grab and thought how nasty that company is, how greedy, how unkind they were. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out, Joy Reid, “liberal” darling, got the most retweets from the bridge trolls. Yet CNN didn’t confront her on the lawn of her mansion and ask her about collusion with Russia. No, that kind of treatment was reserved for ordinary citizens on behalf of ratings. It’s a money maker to go after a Trump supporter for their truly stupid audience who believe the “Russians are coming to get us, let’s start a war” crap. I think it’s the same crowd CNN is playing to in this situation. I find it appalling.

    I find Trump’s actions equally appalling. This child is not up for use (at least he shouldn’t be). If Trump cared about him he could offer his support privately. NO ONE should be using a child for their own purpose. He has suffered a great harm and now the adults around him are compounding that harm. A pox on all persons engaged in extending his suffering by using him.

  6. Which email is the original is easily provable.

    In addition to that, Dana Loesch reported that CNN whipped the crowd up, and then had her walk down an aisle between students screaming obscenities at her with loud music playing, like it was WWF. People were screaming “burn her!”. She said she’d never have gotten out safely without her armed guard.

    Does this sound like the behavior of a professional news organization setting up a mature discussion on how to approach this issue? Or does it sound like using the deaths of children for political advantage?

    This is insanity. Let’s review what led up to this mass murder:

    Nikolas Cruz was disciplined by his schools for violence over 40 times. The law prevents the school district from expelling him from the entire district. Every student is entitled to a free education, no matter how unsafe he makes the other students. So all they could do was expel him from individual schools and transfer him around the district, like a pedophile priest.

    Deputy Scot Peterson, with a name that is truly cursed at this point, was the school resource officer who refused to cooperate with a social services investigation into Cruz in 2016. He would not provide them any information.

    Again in 2016, the Broward County Sheriff gave him information from a third party that he had threatened to shoot up the school. It is not clear if this was ever investigated.

    The police were called on Cruz 39 times, on of which when he pointed a loaded gun at his brother’s head. Since the boys made up, the mother did not press charges. On some of those calls, 2 counselors from Henderson Mental Health, where he was an outpatient, and a counselor from the Florida Department of Children and Families, all told the police on separate calls NOT to Baker Act him, because he was not a danger to himself or others. During his outpatient care at Henderson, he was never Baker Acted, ether.

    However, he was openly talking bout killing people and shooting up a school.

    In September 2017, a Youtuber reported to the FBI that Cruz posted that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter”. The FBI said they couldn’t figure out who he was or where he lived. He’d posted under his own nam.e

    In January 2018, someone else reported to the FBI that Cruz was threatening to shoot up a school. The FBI has no explanation for why it failed to send the tip to the Miami field officer, or follow up in any way.

    When the shooting took place, Deputy Peterson apparently froze. He heard the shots but never engaged the shooter, save any students, or do anything but stay under cover.

    Basically, every single government agency involved in this case messed this up. I can’t really blame the police for not having him committed, since every mental health professional they asked told them no. However, if he had been committed, or convicted, he would have been in NICS and unable to buy a gun.

    How can anyone look at this serial breakdown of failsafes, and think the problem is the firearm used? Why isn’t most of the outrage directed to the FBI and the counsellors?

    1. This is a hint at one of the problems. Five states have ways for parents, police, or others close to a mentally disturbed individual to get the police to take away his or her guns for a period of time. Florida does not. Why? Wayne the Peter and the NRA that’s why. Florida politicians Rubio and others along with Trump get millions from the NRA and would surely see their opponents get funding if they went in the direction(s) that would limit nut jobs access to guns. The Peter wants no restrictions. Trump just repealed a bill that would link Federal data bases that register those mentally incompetent to the FBI background checks. Ask in which direction your representative is going.

      The right to ‘bear arms’ does not mean absolutely anyone. The right to ‘bear arms’ means whatever the shill with the money to buy politicians wants it to mean. In actuality it means nothing. It was written almost 250 years ago in a time of war and marauding indigenous people that were pissed off. It was written in a time of slavery and just as with slavery it will take generation to repeal. There is no such thing as god given rights or unalienable rights. Humans wrote the sacred texts, not a god or an alien. To believe otherwise is idiocy. If I believed in god it would be against this 2nd amendment.

      The benchmark for a society is responsibility for its actions. The US is woefully irresponsible in so many ways. This issue of guns and all the stupidity that is taking the lives of innocents is at the forefront. And Trump makes political hay, The Peter pontificates and promises the end to the world as we know it if bump stocks are totally banned, assault rifles designed to kill humans not animals are banned, if anything is done to limit the carnage.

      On a scale of one to ten, most countries are reasonably near the minimal point with guns being available but only to responsible people. The US is over the 10 mark into a world of near absolute chaos. Interrpreting the ‘right to bear arms’ should be the right in question, not the purchasing of the laws by a few idiots.

      1. the data base is open to the pujblic last I looked. the law has already been interpreted by the Supreme Court BEFORE Gorsuch and for thje first time they added the right to keep and bear arms for personal and family protection so what is your programmer bitching about this time? Whose 10 mark? A foreigners?

        1. Like I said, purchased by a few and ‘lorded’ over all. ‘Whose 10 mark?’ That’s obvious. The US is one of the most violent nations there is. The irresponsible proliferation of guns is found nowhere else to the degree that it is found in the US. As for being a foreigner, I made an adult, conscious, responsible decision to become an American; as opposed to just cumming along and having no say in the matter.

          The 2nd amendment was written almost 250 years ago in a different time, different conditions, and with no relevance to today’s weaponry. To apply it to bump stocks, assault rifles, and maximum carry clips, is not American as I see it, but American for profit at the expense of innocent lives. The arguments for unrestrained possession of weaponry as spouted by The Peter and his ilk is no different than the arguments for slavery, not that long ago, or that it is the responsibility of the Blacks to fix their situation, not society as a whole.

          1. The arguments for unrestrained possession of weaponry as spouted by The Peter and his ilk is no different than the arguments for slavery,

            Your routine arguments denying the existence of natural rights, that all rights come from government is no different than the arguments for slavery.

            1. Olly

              This is where we go wrong as people. When we, the people, declare that rights, privileges, etc, whatever, are ‘natural’, ‘god-given’, ‘unalienable’, or in any way above the level of ‘the people’, then we, ‘the people’, give a value greater than that of us. We take ourselves out of the equation. The reality of life is, as has been illustrated throughout time, that, regardless of what sort of qualification attached-god-given, divine right given, constitutionally given, whatever; it is ‘we the people’ that is the source of everything. Just as slavery was ‘god-ordained’ at one time, right here in the good old USofA, access to the most murderous and unnecessary weapons is ‘god-ordained’ these days. Hopefully this will change and the ilk of The Peter will go the way of those that once connected slavery with some god-given ‘right’.

              For good or bad, it has always been ‘we the people’ and nothing else. Accepting the responsibility of confronting the issues of the time is the holiest task of ‘we the people’. Pawning it off on some ‘sacred’ words, a god, or nature, is the root of all that holds ‘the people’ back, anchored to a past that no longer exists, ‘behind’.

              1. The reality of life is, as has been illustrated throughout time, that, regardless of what sort of qualification attached-god-given, divine right given, constitutionally given, whatever; it is ‘we the people’ that is the source of everything.

                The entire point of rights being natural and unalienable IS that We take ourselves out of the equation. So you would be correct that ‘we the people are the source of everything but that everything is reflected in whether we commit to securing those rights, or we allow our sinful nature to insert ourselves in the equation. Once we the people enable the latter, then the security of rights equation has inserted the variable of man’s sinful nature and we defeat the former. This is when you allow people to argue that slavery is “god-ordained”, that life is not worthy of securing for some reason or another, or that the security of our property is determined by the designs of the state.

                1. Olly

                  Ultimately, it is the human that creates its world. That, that world includes nature, rights, etc. Ask yourself what is more divine, natural, or god worthy; a selective and perverse interpretation of the ‘right to bear arms’ that ignores ‘well regulated militia’ as well as the context of the time when the words were penned which has resulted in the chaos, proliferation of murderous weaponry, and carnage; or the a comprehensive and evolving interpretation of the ‘right to bear arms’ that includes the intended ‘well regulated’ part, an appreciation of the difference between the times and conditions and a musket and an assault rifle with a bump stock, the complexities of today’s society, and above all the ability to control the conditions.

                  Humans wrote the words, ‘the right to bear arms’ at a specific time with specific conditions. Humans can adjust for the consequences. When there were no automobiles, there were no speed limits. When it became apparent that alcohol and driving did not mix, laws were invoked. Times and conditions change. It is regressive to be unable to adapt.

                  The contradiction that should be obvious is that the United States was created by those who wished to adapt to a changing world and throw off the restrictions of divine rights, sacred conditions, servitude, etc. America is only as great as its ability to adapt, innovate, and lead. Regarding guns, America is drowning in a nonsensical and murderous quagmire. This is also the case with education and health care, not brilliant. The same, holier than thou attitude attempting to attach society to other than human evolution is the anchor that is holding America back.

                2. Hobbes teaches us that without people’s construct of the organized state, we are unable to live together outside of the state of nature; which as you know is short, nasty and brutish. The social contract requires that we concede our right to commit unmitigated violence to the people’s constructed state. In effect, the state is the people, it operates in the name of the people, and the people are never taken out of the equation. Pro tip: I understand where you’re coming from with the reference to “natural rights,” but continuing to included “god-given” in your soliloquy merely complicates the matter. Such “natural rights” don’t require the intervention of God, Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, or any other mythical deity.

                  this is to olly

                  1. but continuing to included “god-given” in your soliloquy merely complicates the matter. Such “natural rights” don’t require the intervention of God, Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, or any other mythical deity.

                    Thanks Mark.
                    I would agree and I try not to define for others what they believe their Creator to be. It’s unnecessary to believe in God to believe in natural rights. I came to my understanding and belief in natural rights before I had a belief in God. I exist, period. And because I exist, whether it is in the state of nature or civilized society, I have natural rights. My right to life, liberty and property preexist any man-made form of government.

                    As you say, life is short, nasty and brutish. That makes the security of rights more feasible living within civil society. So we the people decided (social contract) to live in civil society for the security of those rights. We established a form of government specifically for that purpose and we gave our government (enabled) power to do certain things on our behalf. This is the principle behind the 2nd self-evident in the Declaration of Independence:

                    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

                    So, where government is enabled, we are disabled. Disabled doesn’t mean we give up the right (unalienable). It merely means we retain the right but through our social contract we disable our need to secure it over to the state. My duty as a citizen then is as Patrick Henry stated, is to Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. And where government exceeds its purpose, we then exercise our natural authority under the fourth self-evident truth in the DofI:

                    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

                    1. Olly

                      The natural rights of freedoms is understood. I am not questioning our natural rights of freedoms. However, when, in a society, freedoms are interpreted perversely, as is the 2nd amendment, society has the responsibility, as does each individual, to define certain freedoms so that they do not infringe on innocent members because of their perversity. The problem with the second amendment is how it is interpreted by the gun industry/oligarchs, the NRA, and an extreme minority of irresponsible members of society. The right to bear arms as a natural right is a fabrication of a society at its birth almost 250 years ago. There is no logical, common sensical, or ‘American’ reason not to place this ‘natural’ right/freedom into today’s context. limiting the types of arms, excluding the mentally incompetent, criminal, etc, and using every function of government to do so, does not contradict the second amendment. Society comes first. Protecting the innocent comes first. The second amendment is not a ‘natural’ right that precedes the safety and security of society. The freedom from the tyranny of a minority such as the NRA comes first. The majority designed these freedoms. The majority should be able to adjust its designs.

                    2. The natural rights of freedoms is understood. I am not questioning our natural rights of freedoms.

                      On the contrary, you are questioning natural rights. As a matter of fact you do that quite often.

                      The Bill of Rights does not provide anything that man doesn’t already have by nature. Within or outside civil society, we have those rights that are now codified in the Bill of Rights. The constitution didn’t create the rights, the rights created the constitution. The state is empowered to establish laws that provide the security of rights for law-abiding citizens while disabling rights of those who threaten that security.

                      One of the most illogical arguments against the 2nd amendment is claiming the oligarchs are behind its defense. Why is that illogical? Because it’s also claimed by those same people that the oligarchs control government. The last thing oligarchs and the state want is an armed citizenry.

                      This is a very good article regarding the 2nd amendment.
                      We decide together, through democratic and other political means, what rights and obligations people are to have, and the state acts (in theory) as our instrument in that matter. If you take that view, then the progressive attitude toward the right to keep and bear arms — that it is more trouble than it is worth and that it therefore should be reduced or eliminated altogether — is entirely understandable.

      2. Isaac, the last time I looked it up, getting committed or having a judge deem you mentally unstable puts someone on NICS in all 50 states. (Of course, only 38 actually report, and even those are not complete.) And, if you look into it, the NRA does not actually donate that much money. It’s peanuts compared to Soros or Unions or any other big donors. The reality is that the NRA represents millions of gun owning members. There is significant support for the 2nd Amendment. I do not agree with all of the NRA’s positions, however.

        In Florida, they have the Baker Act, which would have put Cruz into NICS. However, 3 mental health professionals (in addition to his regular outpatient counselors) all counseled the cops NOT to Baker Act him. So that opportunity was there, but not utilized.

        I do agree with you, however, that we need to do more about the violently mentally ill. I have known people who had seriously mentally ill relatives and friends. They were told that there was nothing the authorities could do until they hurt someone, and that was a pretty likely probability. One woman was driving around with a real sword in her trunk, because she saw demons everywhere. I mean really saw them. The 72 hour hold won’t solve the mental health issue, but it will put someone into the database. However, there are people who are seriously mentally disturbed but it is shockingly hard to get them committed. At one point, it was way too easy to commit someone involuntarily, but now it is way too hard. The side effects from medication can be severe, so patients don’t like to take them. When they are off their meds, some are beyond rational thought.

        I think there is some room for improvement. For example, I know that at least in some states, a restraining order can get you into NICS, but is it all states?

        Considering that every single failsafe failed, I am a bit at a loss as to why everyone is furious about guns in general when it was the system that broke down. And if it broke down here, it likely has broken down other places. We put those failsafes in place, but they don’t help if they are not used.

    2. Karen S. said, “Which email is the original is easily provable.”

      Indeed. But then, no one is disputing which email is the original. Because, the CNN email was sent to the Haabs at 5:46 pm, while the Haab email was sent to Fox at 5:47 pm and to HuffPost also at 5:47 pm. Plenty of time for either Colton or Glenn Haab to delete the words “that he submitted” from the CNN email before forwarding that altered version of the email to Fox and HuffPost–provided that the Haabs had premeditated that course of action before they executed that premeditated plan of theirs.

      1. Late4Dinner – It is entirely possible that the Haabs edited the email. If they did, it was remarkably short sighted, as it is easily proven.

        A time stamp, however, is not how you prove it, but rather have IT find the original document.

  7. Why would this kid lie about that??? He didn’t attend the event because he didn’t feel right about what they were telling him to say. CNN IS CORRUPT!!! Stop watching if you are and stop supporing their sponsors. Un-real!!!!

    1. The Haabs forwarded an altered version of the email CNN sent to them at 5:46 pm to Fox at 5:47 pm and to HuffPost also at 5:47 pm.. There is a maximum of 120 seconds elapsed between the time stamps on the CNN email versus the altered version The Haabs sent Fox and HuffPost. That argues strongly in favor of The Haab’s quickly executing a premeditated plan of action to sully and besmirch the reputation of CNN. In the case of Mary S, The Haab’s premeditated plan confirmed the preconceived bias of Mary S against CNN.

      P. S. Don’t be surprised if Tucker Carlson and Fox News “colluded” with The Haabs on that premeditated plan to sully and besmirch the reputation of CNN.

      1. Having 120 seconds as a window of opportunity does not prove he edited it. They had to look up the email addresses of where to forward it. Even 5 seconds would be enough to delete a phrase, if you knew where you were forwarding it.

        I have absolutely no idea whether the Haabs or CNN edited the email or not, and frankly, neither do you. However, it is easily proven. Someone had better cough up verification of origin. In this case, someone is lying, and if so, it’s libel.

        Whoever edited the email created unnecessary drama in an already traumatic experience for these students, and for the country as a whole.

        1. From the Business Insider article linked in Turley’s original post for this thread:

          “According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.”

  8. another in a long line of attempts to muddy the waters and avoid the real issue….this time using a kid to do it. What a nasty, sordid people we have become.

  9. I can clearly see that the Criminal News Network version has been modified and they themselves just posted it for all to see! Compare the header information and lack of just to start with. I stand with the student. Never respect biased paid for arm chair news.

    1. Both versions of the email have header information. The header information in the CNN email is in a different format than the header information in the altered version of the CNN email that The Haabs sent to Fox News and HuffPost. The reason for the different formats of the header information in the two emails is that CNN uses a different email format than The Haabs use. You are grasping at straws, Mark Stephens.

            1. Trump has been calling CNN fake news for a good long while, now. Your sensitivity to name calling is an instance of special pleading that exempts Trump from the same rules of civil discourse that you would impose on Trump’s critics and detractors. As Tucker Carlson said to Colton Haab: “That seems dishonest.”

      1. Why not? They are only grandchildren. If I can ignore the former citizens trying to meddle in our countries businenss – to a point – you should have no trouble and when was your return ticket for?

    1. They’re not fighting with a kid…. they are fighting to save their sorry ass. When the truth come out just LiE! that how they roll.

  10. So now CNN is the victim, after it has been victimizing the entire nation for 2 years with lies and fake news? A victim with bite marks on its a$$ by a teenager! Haha!

    1. yah… like I said… when they get caught lying — they turn the tables and LIE MORE — now it’s the kid’s fault. It’s not called COMMUNIST NEWS NETWORK becuase they are upright and honest that’s for damned sure.

  11. It is understandable that the emotion based energies/desires/intentions/etc of the boy and his father might clash with the organizational format of the media. If the media’s intention was to present the thoughts of those involved in such a manner as to allow those thoughts to be clear and able to be heard, then that is their job. If the media’s intention was to script the event so as to design their intentions regarding gun control and the 2nd amendment, then that is not their job. However, there is absolutely no media entity that is not biased to some extent.

    It appears that the father wanted to piggy back a statement onto the program that was focused on his son. That is understandable but perhaps would conflict with the organizational issues, ie only so much time.

    What is certain and evident from Trump’s tweets is that he will stoop to lower and lower levels to attack the press that does not kowtow to him. The Washington Times and Fox News kowtows to Trump and therefore is never criticized by him. The level of disgust is growing with Trump as he descends lower and lower. Trump attacks the FBI over the blood of the students. Pathetic and disgusting. Trump chimes in to bolster his position over the blood of the students, beyond pathetic and disgusting; certainly anything but Presidential. What a scumbag, a scumbag that eclipses Clinton by far, and that is something.

    1. Before you compare the two (clinton & trump), can you think of anything lower that red dresses and cigars (you have my permission to forget about rape and sexual abuse). If you think those are presidential, I fully understand yur statement!

      1. Purple dresses and stains? Serial sex offenses over decades? Enabling and victimizing the victims? Sure I can think of al lot and never get past the letter C. What’s your excuse? Every time you bring up something like that , or military service, or economics you get the equivalent smeared across the page.

    2. Short version…it’s ok to support evil as long as it’s your kind of evil. Which makes you even more disgusting than iyour programmer intended.

      1. I read the same article and got the opposite reaction and the word would be interject. Back to grammar school.


      1. Wow… Your use of all caps has swayed me. Maybe, just maybe, I’m wrong about the day glo bozo.What, am I gonna believe my lyin’ eyes, or hannity?

        this is to “11 am is awfully early to be hittin the wine” mary

    2. But when it’s another subject it’s act like an adult Johnny you are almost of legal age. Suchj BS. the Hand Guns banning outfit that Olive Garden and Red Lobster support defines child as up to 20 years 364 days old and includes gang on gang shootings.

      Young man made a clear decision and followed through . Clearly NOT Traumatized beyond disgust for CNN.

  12. From the Business Insider article linked in Turley’s original post for this thread:

    “In my interview with CNN, I had talked about arming the teachers, if they were willing to arm themselves in the school, to carry on campus,” Haab told Carlson. “And they had — she had taken that, of what I had briefed on, and actually wrote that question out for me.”

    CNN says that Stevenson and Colton agreed on one question that Colton would ask, but that Haab’s father, Glenn Haab, intervened, sending a lengthy speech (see below) that he wanted Colton to read, which included three questions for lawmakers.

    Stevenson responded that the speech was “way too long” and that Colton “needs to stick” to the question they agreed on. Glenn then responded that he and his son “are not actors” and that Colton would not participate in the town hall if he could not read the full speech.

    On Friday afternoon, Fox News and the HuffPost reached out to CNN to verify emails between the Haabs and Stevenson that they received from Colton.

    A CNN source provided Colton’s version of the emails, as well as their versions of all of the communications between the Haabs and CNN, to Business Insider.

    In CNN’s version of one email, Stevenson told Glenn that Colton needed to stick to a question that he and Stevenson “discussed on the phone that he submitted.” But in the version of the email provided by Colton to Fox and HuffPost, the phrase, “that he submitted” is deleted.

    According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.

    1. From the Washington Post article linked in Turley’s original post for this thread:

      Days before the town hall, Haab told Carlson, CNN’s Carrie Stevenson — executive producer of special projects — contacted him about the event. “She had asked me originally to just write a speech,” said Haab. In the next round of correspondence, Stevenson asked for less of a speech and “more … questions that I wanted to ask at the town hall. The day after that, it was more of just questions. She asked for just questions that I would like to ask.” The goal of the exercise, Haab discovered, was one question.

      “She had taken that — of what I had briefed on — and actually wrote that question out for me,” said Haab, who didn’t attend the event. “They had taken what I had wrote and what I had briefed on and talked about and they actually wrote the question for me.”

      Carlson: “But that seems dishonest.”

    2. ‘That CNN provided’ used more than once

      ‘It appears that’ used as a qualifier.

      so where’s the objective properly resourced basis for your eventual statement?

      1. I didn’t make any statement, Michael. Both posts were excerpted from the linked articles in Turley’s original post for this thread. They were both clearly labeled as such.

        Objection overruled.

    1. And Honest Don is a beacon of truth-telling.

      Don’t forget to buy some steak and enroll in the totally legitimate, would-never-settle-for-$25 million Trump University.

        1. If somebody else besides Trump can successfully smear CNN as fake news (as Trump has been claiming for a long time, now), then Trump can pretend to be vindicated (which he quickly did) on anything and everything that CNN reports about Trump. That’s what Dave137 was getting at.

    1. There’s one minute of difference between 5:46 pm versus 5:47 pm. Does Shannon really think that that is significant?

        1. Michael, suppose, by way of speculation and conjecture, that the digital clocks that run email time stamps can change form 5:46 pm to 5:47 pm in less than one second. Further suppose, by way of speculation and conjecture, that the maximum number of seconds elapsed between a time stamp of 5:46 pm versus a time stamp of 5:47 pm would be 120 seconds (a.k.a. two minutes). If the foregoing speculation and conjecture were true, then there could be anywhere from less than one second to as many as 120 seconds of time elapsed between the clicking of the “send message button” on the CNN email versus the clicking of the “send message button” on the Glenn Haab email.

          So, how much time would it take for Colton or Glenn Haab to delete the words “that he submitted” from the CNN email and then send that version of that email to Fox and HuffPost???

          That’s awfully quick thinking. Quick enough to qualify as premeditated.

          P. S. I have every reason to believe that Atlanta Georgia, Washington D.C. and Parkland Florida are all in the same time zone–namely, the Eastern one.

    2. Excellent point. Although i am no comouter expert, the difference in time, on the emails, is highly suspect. Emails, exchanged between two parties, should have corresponding times. . .

        1. bam bam, you don’t need to be a computer expert to figure out that CNN sent an email to The Haabs at 5:46 pm that The Haabs then altered and sent to Fox News and HuffPost at 5:47 pm. The deletion of the words “that he submitted” and the forwarding of that altered version of CNN’s email to Fox and HuffPost was carried out with sufficient speed as strongly to suggest a premeditated plan of action on the part of The Haabs, at least, and possibly even Tucker Carlson and Fox News, as well, to discredit CNN as fake news just like Trump has been saying all along.

    1. Ha ha ha half the time he’s called a leftists. Your programmers should get together unless it’s a DNC and a Rooshun programmer working at cross purposes?

  13. I thought CNN told it was blasphemy to question survivor terms when they were trashing the Second Amendment? How does Jake Tapper stay on camera with that growing nose?

    1. So what does Jake Tapper care about truth in the media? NO MUCH APPARENTLY. If his lips are moving he’s spinning a tall tale.

Leave a Reply