CNN's John King admits story Biden would try to block IA results release was BS from rival campaigns

[highplainsdem]

Link to tweet

Important: Team Biden says talk it may challenge IA release plans 100% untrue. In the breaking news rush my discussing, even skeptically, incoming from rival campaigns was, in a word, stupid.

King was deservedly lectured by a reporter from Raw Story:

Link to tweet

Maybe next time, ask whether a rumor is even colorably plausible before reporting it on CNN.

The idea any candidate would sue to stop the release of results doesn't make any damn sense.

I agree with another person who replied there saying King should disclose the source of this lie, which rival campaign(s) it came from.

[RandySF]

1. Let me guess....

[highplainsdem]

5. GMTA

[Amishman]

9. We all know which campaign you have in mind

No need to say it.

It was my thought too. I even speculated that this was slander from another campaign when the news broke.

[ismnotwasm]

21. Disturbing for sure

[BlueIdaho]

90. Oh Nina...

You got some ‘splainin to do... 😉

[we can do it]

104. Hmmm I wonder.

[LongtimeAZDem]

2. This was ratfucking, pure and simple. I want to know who did it.

[Squinch]

7. It is likely that we all already know who did it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

18. I want proof. And consequences.

[skylucy]

3. Kick! Thanks for posting this.

[George II]

4. Would it surprise anyone if that "report" came from David Sirota?

[Zolorp]

8. That's exactly what I was thinking.

He has a history f this sort of shenanigans.

[tishaLA]

32. I wouldn't be surprised by Lis Smith either TBH

She's not as in-your-face obnoxious as the other one, but she's still plenty bad.

[George II]

36. David Sirota has a history of stuff like this, including setting up a fake website....

....that made racial attacks on his own candidate.

If you're on twitter, you should see what he's been doing for months - @davidsirota

[tishaLA]

45. No, I know Sirota's disgusting resume

but I also know Ms Smith's. And I ask myself: who is running in the same lane and has more to gain with a negative Biden story?

[Iliyah]

6. But it is out there now . . .

And VP Biden's haters are having a field day.

sad.

[groundloop]

14. I DESPISE the use of lies in a campaign

And any "reporter" sure the hell should check facts before putting a story out. Ask John Kerry what lies can do to a candidacy.

[LongtimeAZDem]

26. "A lie will make it around the world before the truth has it's boots on."

[Ghost Dog]

87. Truth shouldn't need boots though.

Barefoot naked. There's Truth.

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. Ratfucking, pure and simple.

Whoever started this story needs to come clean about it.

[getagrip_already]

11. I smelled a rat as soon as I saw it.....

Joe just isn't running his campaign like that. From the start, he has been looking past iowa and nh. He doesn't need to win them. He doesn't even need to do well.

There just aren't enough delegates to cry over.

[Kingofalldems]

12. And trolls celebrated the false story.

[George II]

17. David Sirota is retweeting the crap out of that from others. Clever, get someone to make something..

...up, then retweet it. That way he can say "I didn't say it".

[mcar]

54. Very Trumpian

[dem4decades]

62. Very Putinian, let's give credit where credit is due.

[Cha]

108. But will sirota retweet King's admission?

[greenjar_01]

23. Do you see what I see?

[ploppy]

13. kick

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. K&R

[still_one]

16. Let me guess which rival campaign that would be? I suspect it is the one who seems

to always whine

[Cha]

19. I hope this is seen by all those who

said it was "not a good look".

I was posting on the other one and it was sell-deleted.. so I was going to post John King's tweet.. Thank you for doing this, hpd!

[revmclaren]

30. Really not a good look for those

Who pushed the false story.

Very disqualifying and telling for those on and off DU.

Go Joe!!!

ONLY!!! 2020 and beyond.

[Cha]

33. Precisely, rev!

Link to tweet

[Scurrilous]

35. Link to the locked thread to facilitate 'not a good look' searches for those who need a laugh.

All caps warning. Plus stupidity warning.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287473650#post88

[George II]

37. Hmm, self deleted without even acknowledging that it was a fake story in the first place.

[Cha]

43. Ikr.. I was pissed.

[Scurrilous]

58. Raw meat tossers become inured to consequences of their toiling.

[Cha]

41. Great idea.. Thank You!

This John King OP needs to stay kicked for everyone to see.. I was going to individually post King's tweet to everyone on that thread who made such disparaging comments over fake news.

Link to tweet

[emmaverybo]

65. Hah hah. NOT A GOOD LOOK for whomever started it, John King, and those who fell for it.

[OilemFirchen]

93. Gotta love the newb with the "And now the walk back".

[samnsara]

20. what the hell does that even mean? Reading that statement was like reading while drunk..

[highplainsdem]

28. If you mean King's tweet, it was a badly written, desperate attempt to blame his stupid mistake

on "the breaking news rush."

BS.

[Scurrilous]

39. NY Times used that excuse for this:

[highplainsdem]

48. .

[greenjar_01]

22. Hahaha. Yes, it was. And others, ahem.

We had a pretty good illustration, I should think.

[madibella]

24. Yuck. That's so shady.

I don't know who started the rumor, but past behavior has my mind going to one campaign.

Gross.

[texasfiddler]

25. This is how Trump likes it!

Divided we lose.

[revmclaren]

27. K & R.

Expose the lies and those who spread them!

Go Joe!!!

ONLY!!! 2020 and beyond.

[Scurrilous]

29. LOL

The other campaigns - Corporate media clowns killed my lunch break buzz.

[stonecutter357]

31. This has the stench of JPR all over it .

[highplainsdem]

38. JPR couldn't do this. This BS came from someone fairly high up in a rival campaign.

I want to see the ratfucker exposed and fired.

And if the candidate won't fire the ratfucker, then the candidate's no better.

[George II]

40. More like David Sirota.

[Hav]

34. What is amazing and troubling is

how easily lies are spread by campaigns. The nonsense already for this caucus alone is amazing. We know about it because one fraction here is happily spreading even the most idiotic garbage (Robby Mook developing the software, the software company being some clandestine, super secretive organisation connected to Pete etc.).

[redstatebluegirl]

42. I think BS is correct.

[TheRealNorth]

73. Did David King tell you that?

If not, then maybe you shouldn't engage in the same ratfuckery that you fell victim to, especially if you have no proof.

[sdfernando]

44. King is useless.

Gets worse every year. Sell by date long past due!

[Progress_Dem]

47. Keep walking it back Biden campaign

Tough time for the Biden campaign. Looks like his campaign is seriously floundering. And it doesn't look like New Hampshire is going to help him at all.

[highplainsdem]

49. Walking what back? This was a lie spread by a rival campaign. Ratfucking.

We already have ratfuckers in the White House. We don't need any more.

[Hav]

52. Are you for real? How progressive is it to spread lies

and then continue to attack the victim of the smear?
King explicitly stated that the smear came from a rival campaign and not from the Biden camp. Nothing to walk back when it's bs spread by someone else. I guess you didn't even bother reading past the subject line.

[Thekaspervote]

60. New Ntl poll released today Harvard CAPS/Harris Biden 31 sanders 20

Check out the 538 who will win the nomination page. Out of 57 states and territories your guy wins 15, Biden wins 42

[Scurrilous]

75. ....

I wish there was an alert button for [redacted] who [redacted] poorly.

[LanternWaste]

100. Bernie's dirty tricks won't help his anemic, second-rate campaign

(see? we can both make unsourced, unsupported allegations to better maintain the pretense our biases are actually an absolute reliability-- as long as we both admit it's nothing more than pretense and wishful thinking...)

[ehrnst]

109. Repeating debunked smears against Democrats isn't good for anyone.

Yourself included.

[Iliyah]

50. But you would think that the media would fact check it . . .

And this goes with any of the Democratic campaign. If thee can to it to one, then all the campaigns can fall to prey.

It should be confirmed first before reporting it.

[Peacetrain]

51. Oh for the love of God!! you know, sometimes you cannot make this stuff up!.

You just want them all to go soak their heads in some cold water.. whew..

[mcar]

53. The media needs to stop this nonsense

When will they stop falling for spin - they've been dealing with this WH for 3 years now and they still fall for it.

[highplainsdem]

55. This wasn't just spin. This was ratfucking, and I hope we find out which campaign did it.

[mcar]

56. You are right

It was ratfcking. I have my guesses.

[Thekaspervote]

61. I don't think we have to guess

[asiliveandbreathe]

57. That's right - it was a BS story..knowing which campaign doesn't matter...the infighting

is not helping any candidate, or team, or Democratic voter - right here at DU the debate is becoming intolerable..can we just get out of the weeds...United we stand, divided we fall...

[Progress_Dem]

59. Remember, this is a primary

It is only going to get more heated.

I'll support Biden if he is the nominee though. Will you do the same for Sanders?

[LongtimeAZDem]

67. You don't seem to be bothered that it was an flat-out lie; would you be OK if Sanders was the target?

[asiliveandbreathe]

69. Exactly..n/t

[Progress_Dem]

76. Because I don't think it was a "flat out lie"

And Sanders is constantly the target of flat out lies from many.

That is politics.

[LongtimeAZDem]

77. It has been retracted by the reporter as having come from a rival campaign. Your response implies

that your motive for accepting it is revenge.

[asiliveandbreathe]

68. Vote Blue No matter who..but, does that mean the primary has to be nasty..

Full of lies, reporting results when there are none..etc etc...I will continue to work for my candidate..Beat tRump..in the end, who is the most electable....without being in the weeds nasty....

[Progress_Dem]

79. Most primaries

are nasty. Or at least they seem nasty in the heat of the moment. That is just the nature of a primary. We as a party are debating and choosing our future. It isn't going to be all hugs and kisses!

[LongtimeAZDem]

81. So, you're cool with more lies in the future, because it is "the nature of the primary"?

That's sad.

[Progress_Dem]

83. I'm just not naive

I realize this is politics, not crochet.

btw, again, I don't think it was a "flat out lie."

[LongtimeAZDem]

91. Unless you can produce evidence that an actual Biden campaign official stated their intent to

block the results, you are propagating a lie that has been denied by the campaign and retracted by the reporter, without evidence.

That's not politics.

[asiliveandbreathe]

84. LD25AZ here..couldn't agree more..which candidate released internal data

and then flew away to NH. Which candidate wants to see 100% results when released..this infighting gets US nowhere..

Which candidate made a good decision for the Democratic party...

[emmaverybo]

72. Dear lordie. All supporters of other candidates have vowed again and again here to "vote

blue no matter who” except for some Bernie supporters. Constantly we are threatened with defection from that camp if Bernie loses.

I understand not ALL supporters...but I don’t understand why the challenge to Biden supporters specifically when almost universally we have declared we would vote Bernie over Trump. Is there ONE Biden supporter who has said otherwise?

Does Biden himself not have a history championing Dem candidates with hands-on mentoring and campaigning? Has he ever acted the spoilsport?

[tirebiter]

63. Complaining at this point is stupid

It just draws things out. Just another example of making the world a better place with the internet.

[exboyfil]

66. I think burning the source helps for tapping this crap down myself

Let that person go on the defensive explaining how they told the reporter a falsehood.

[exboyfil]

64. Reporters pick up the damn phone and call Biden or his designated

campaign person and confirm or deny a story before you put it out there.

This source must be burned.

[bluesxtreme]

70. Hmmm..

Majority of supporters insinuating which campaign without proof...Seems just as dirty.

[LongtimeAZDem]

71. I have repeatedly said I will not accuse without proof. Whomever is behind it needs to be exposed.

However, when a single campaign has a long-standing history of disinformation and attacks, they're going to be suspected in situations like this. If they don't like that, perhaps they should reexamine their tactics.

[emmaverybo]

74. Here, here. This.

[highplainsdem]

78. +1,000,000

[Progress_Dem]

85. And there is no disinformation and attacks

leveled at the Sanders campaign by other campaigns?

[LongtimeAZDem]

88. Like deliberately lying about a candidate's positions by using doctored video?

No, the Sanders campaign is pretty unique in that regard.

[LanternWaste]

101. Who specifically is arguing that point?

no one? Then we do little more than illustrate our irrelevance once again, yes?

[Cha]

80. BS' campaign history..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Attack Biden for the same thing BS did.

Link to tweet

[Scurrilous]

82. Speaking of dirty, I have to go wash my socks.

BRB

[Cha]

96. LOL.. la la la la la

[Scurrilous]

97. I stole that from someone.

[Cha]

98. I've never seen it

used in quite that way.. so it was extra special.. lol

[MH1]

94. Saying, "hmm two guesses who did X", is NOT the same as falsely saying "Person A did X".

Not even close.

If lots of people agree that a person may have done something "because that's the sort of thing they do", it might be that at some point the person DID something like that.

[Tweedy]

86. Gee thanks Mr. King for spreading falsity

Not what anyone needs right now.

Check everything please!

[George II]

89. This gives us an indication of who put out the false claim about Biden's campaign "suing":

Link to tweet

[Cha]

92. shocking.

[LongtimeAZDem]

103. And that was posted two hours after the story was retracted, which means that whether they were

the source or not, they were willing to advance and exploit a false story.

[Cha]

110. +1

[robbedvoter]

106. and Hayes giving them a forum, also in character.

[Cha]

107. thanks for telling us that.

[ecstatic]

95. I'm disgusted by the way "news" networks handled the caucuses, before and after.

Preemptive declarations about what a win means for this person or what a loss means for that person.

Rushing to judgment and forcefully attempting to shape the narrative.

[Me.]

102. Those Initials Say It All

[robbedvoter]

105. Well, it doesn't make sense for Democrats. W did that in 2000 with Florida

SCOTUS Bush🆚Gore.