• Source: YouTube
  • Conservatives Freaking Out Over Latest Conspiracy Theory: Questions Were Rigged For Hillary Clinton

    The Anti-Hillary Hate Machine Is Working Overtime – Agenda-Driven Journalists Just Can't Seem To Perform Basic Journalism

    There's an entire right wing hate machine devoted to creating conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton. Just google "Vince Foster" or "Whitewater" to see how insane conservatives can get about her.

    Here's the latest.

    The questions at Monday night's Democratic Town Hall, hosted by CNN's award winning journalist Chris Cuomo, were "rigged."

    Here's the "evidence":

    As you can see, a slightly nervous young man (who wouldn't be nervous asking a presidential candidate a question on live TV in front of hundreds of people in the audience and millions on TV?) said this to Hillary Clinton:

    "Secretary Sanders – Clinton, sorry. I can see why they gave you this question. I just wanted to know which of our previous presidents has inspired you most and why."

    That young man, who was identified by Cuomo as Brett Rosengren, is easily locatable. He's on Twitter.

    And as you can see from Rosengren's tweets, he wrote and submitted a question. He said it could be directed to any candidate. CNN chose his question, and since this isn't a debate where all three candidates are on stage at once, it was chosen for Clinton. This is how all the questions worked. People who asked the questions got to choose which candidate or candidates they were directing their questions to.

    He's also not a Clinton supporter, obviously:

    So, the questions were not planted or rigged, contrary to "the stupidest man on the Internet," Jim Hoft, aka the Gateway Pundit, and contrary to suggestions by the right wing conspiracy theorists masquerading as journalists at MediaiteReal Clear Politics and Biz Pac Review ("Conservative News You Can Trust,") who didn't bother to do their jobs and just amplified ignorance, or attacks from Twitter.

    Amanda Girard at U.S. Uncut penned a hysterical tongue-in-cheek post mocking the conspiracy theorists – after actually contacting Rosengren, which any of the other right wing sites could have done. But why would they?

    At least the right-wing Washington Examiner did their work:

    A CNN source told the Washington Examiner media desk that producers picked the question especially for Clinton because of her former president husband. The source said producers also felt the question was best suited to be the last one asked. The source denied, however, that CNN wrote the question or "planted" it.

    There's enough misinformation and ignorance in America.

    Shame on those "journalists" who would rather fuel those fires than do their jobs by investigating and reporting facts, and the whole story, not to mention putting a young man brave enough to stand up and ask a question in the middle of it all. 

     

    Image: Screenshot via YouTube 

    Get weekly news & updates
    Subscribe
    Support our work DONATE



    Register to VOTE

    Showing 2 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2016-01-26 12:03:41 -0500
      Let’s look at the facts, before you dismiss any theory out of hand, as you decry poor journalism.

      Time Warner, CNN’s parent company was HRC’s 8th largest campaign donor. Surely they have a bias in hosting this debate and this article should have disclosed that financial connection, if it was at all worth it’s salt. Is that fair that HRC received donations from the network hosting the ‘town hall’ and Sen. Sanders and Gov. O’Malley did not?

      If you look at the rush transcript posted to CNN, you can review all of the questions and determine if you feel that all candidates received the same quality of questions or the same degree of scrutiny. HRC was asked who her favorite president was, but not about Wall St, not about her speaking fees, campaign finance, or inequality. She was allowed to LIE with impunity on her support of LGBT rights and causes and this blog made no mention of that, despite the fact that this blog is ABOUT the LGBT fight for equality. This blog is showing it has a bias and can’t resist misrepresenting the facts to put the finger on the scale for HRC.

      This article is intellectually dishonest as it doesn’t even manage to scratch the surface and look objectively at the facts. It dismisses truths to arrive at a defense for the most putrid Democratic candidate seen in generations. It’s not as biased at the ‘work’ of Jean Ann Esselink, but it’s getting there.

    • commented 2016-01-26 11:14:39 -0500
      I like the question. And, Clinton’s response was spot on. All the Hillary haters out there should be careful what they ask for I suspect this nation has seen her best days. Hillary has the background and the moxie to be a president. And to those who want to snipe at me for my opinion on this — MY opinion — eff off. I am not interested. Save space for someone with more meaningful responses.

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: