Another report, another example of CNN being the conduit of J-6 misinformation.

As CNN continues to reel from the departure of Jeff Zucker, the network is also continuing with another practice – serving as the accomplice with members of the January Six Commission investigating the Capitol Riot. One of the unintended offshoots of the Zucker debacle was a curious admission made by one of the network’s entrenched Washington fixtures, correspondent Jamie Gangel, immediately after his firing. Gangel let slip that members of Congress had reached out to her to express their dismay at Zucker’s demise.

This unintentional admission now prompts one to look over reports from CNN and see that there are blatant signs of collusion with the committee. One very recent article shows this is in play. The headline alone invites questions to be asked: Exclusive: Newly obtained records show Trump and Jim Jordan spoke at length on morning of January 6. This is concerning the recently received trove of White House documents that the commission received following the Supreme Court ruling that the archives were not covered by executive privilege, and could be sent over to Congress.

This is obviously new information from that doc dump, and not reported yet by the commission. How did CNN have access to this EXCLUSIVE? Through its over-friendly backchannel with members of the investigators. CNN has been viewed as a compliant outlet for the committee, willing to blare out aggressive headlines based on leaks provided. This story follows that blueprint perfectly; arresting headline, extensive prose insinuating nefarious activity, all while ultimately delivering little to nothing in the way of real news.

The report does indeed prove Jordan and Trump spoke on January 6. And…??? Uh, well, that is assumed to be bad…for some reason.

CNN states these new call logs and documents help the committee, “try to build a complete narrative of what happened that day.” Yet nowhere in this lengthy report is there any indication that Jordan and Trump said anything of merit regarding the investigation. Further, Jordan has never denied these calls, and he has been on the record as saying he and Trump spoke on that day. So what does this new report from CNN deliver?

Insinuation and innuendo. It took four reporters and 1,400 words to say that Jim Jordan called Donald Trump a couple of times on January 6. Nothing more. The rest of the piece concerns what the committee is looking for and what it all could possibly mean, but nothing even approaching substance is delivered. 

This is typical of the reporting we have seen from the committee’s efforts since it was formed. Recall the recent revelation that Fox News pundits called the White House as the riot was taking place – the headlines screamed about the conversations, but the calls by everyone involved to have it brought to an end undermined the entire narrative that the riot on the Capitol was an orchestrated GOP plot. Now once again, there is little in the way of substantive details to be found, but they are delivered as impactful and grave by CNN.

While draping themselves as bi-partisan journalists this hyper-partisan hypocrisy was subsequently more recognized with the scandals that have perpetually percolated out of Atlanta. Any time the network drew negative attention it also invited inspection of their reporting, leading to the blatant agenda at CNN becoming more evident. Another factor in this exposure has been the response of many CNN personalities to Zucker’s abrupt exit. 

Jamie Gangel is a longtime name at CNN, and her reaction to the news was obviously fueled by emotion, but it also leads to a bit of exposure of the game behind the scenes. Bonchie covered Gangel’s response during a conference call with a top executive from Warner Media, the current parent company of CNN, when she expressed how damaging she felt the ouster of Zucker would be. After Warners executive Jason Kilar assured the staffers that CNN would remain on its same journalistic path Gangel was not swayed by his words, going on to make a curious declaration. 

Gangel said she received calls from four members of the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol “who felt devastated for our democracy” now that Zucker has exited CNN.

Well, that is a rich serving of hilarity. We are supposed to believe Zucker was serving as a bulwark of preservation of democracy, the man who is on record as having pledged to do all he can to bring down a duly elected president, doing so by promoting a lie about Russian collusion on his network spanning the entirety of Trump’s term in office. That is like saying an arsonist was trying to protect the integrity of a house from the threat of black mold.

Gangel revealed that she and the committee are working in tandem. Why else would numerous committee members reach her directly to express their dismay at losing an ally in Zucker, if they were not operating from the position that he was providing his network as a conduit for the committee to deliver targeted messaging? This relationship is further exposed by a dispatch from Gangel herself, just two days before Zucker became a pariah. With Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room, she delivers another deeply serious announcement from the committee, last Monday.

"I think it's important to remind people Marc Short is a firsthand fact witness,"@jamiegangel on exclusive new reporting about key January 6 testimony from the chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence. pic.twitter.com/4DrmvQ6p8Y

— The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) February 1, 2022

Gangel arrives with “exclusive new reporting” that shows the committee spoke with the chief of staff to Mike Pence. Gangel stresses that Marc Short was subpoenaed, as were his documents, and that she needs to stress that he is considered a “firsthand fact witness.” Great stuff – and?

“For the record, the committee declined to comment about this story, and I reached out to Marc Short and he also declined to comment”

Sooooo, this exclusive new reporting about someone who she describes as a critical witness adds up to nothing more than – the committee spoke to him. This is just more of the same type of reporting we have seen concerning the committee. The implication is always they have significant findings in this deeply serious investigation that is striving to preserve the very integrity of our democracy and our nation. One day, we have to suppose, they will discover something that will actually move the needle.

Meanwhile, CNN still operates in the very fashion that has brought it scorn, and will just continue to serve up these reports that are considered bombshells, all while none of them actually detonate.