The family of Colton Haab provided doctored emails with CNN to media outlets

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Let me ask you a question, that I'm pretty sure you will ignore.

Why would a high school kid who just went through a horrific shooting event, care who contributes to Ted Cruze's campaign?

How would he even know about Cruz's campaign finance? I get that you really want anything left to be good, and anything Right to be bad, but at some point, you will have to venture into reality if for no other reason, just to look around a bit.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: bulwarkz

CNN might have everything on the line for them in this fiasco they orchestrated.
DJT Declared National Emergency and EO could freeze CNN's accounts if this continues to play out. CNN is acting out a coverup.
That twitter that was unrolled showing the corruption in Miami-Dade and Broward County and the systemic corruption spanning different government entities. What if CNN is privvy to that info and it can be proven?
This is looking like a hail mary play knowing the game is about to end
I would gather to say cnn has everything on the line with this one and it is unraveling on them quickly
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

I hope it doesn't come down to some legal intervention against CNN. The journalism community needs to fix this because any intervention against CNN is not good for any other broadcaster, Fox included. I remember in the early years of Obama, he threatened to block Fox from attending press conferences. CNN even took offence to that. Not because they were pals but because of the precedent it would set.

I hope CNN is not banned or restricted in any way - they are doing a fine job of destroying themselves. That said, they should not be allowed to masquerade as a news outlet. They should be forced to admit that they are a wing of a political party so people are not fooled into thinking they are fair and balanced.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Actually there is a second accuser. Ariana Klein, a student that survived the incident and her father Andrew Klein were on Fox News with Laura Ingraham .





At the 2:40 mark they begin discussing Haab and CNN town hall. At the 4:40 mark the father speaks to his conversation with a CNN producer. He specifically says that CNN was looking for people to "espouse a certain narrative".

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
CNN's version of the email:

Haab's version of the email:

It would have been less ambiguous if the CNN version showed who the email was sent to. For all we know, it could be a version that was circulated internally for review before going to Haab. All we see is who it's from. Is CNN hiding something?

The questions are the same...So I'm missing something...What was the question that was way too long...

a reply to: SailorJerry

CNN is a desperate, dying TABLOID pushing an agenda.

couldn't CNN sue them for libel?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
CNN's version of the email:

Haab's version of the email:

It would have been less ambiguous if the CNN version showed who the email was sent to. For all we know, it could be a version that was circulated internally for review before going to Haab. All we see is who it's from. Is CNN hiding something?

The questions are the same...So I'm missing something...What was the question that was way too long...

I haven't seen the original question. The email is about a phone call and the difference between the two amounts to just a few words which you can see highlighted in yellow. The big deal about this is that either CNN or Haab altered that line. Whichever one isn't known. It raises a question of credibility.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

I haven't seen the original question. The email is about a phone call and the difference between the two amounts to just a few words which you can see highlighted in yellow. The big deal about this is that either CNN or Haab altered that line. Whichever one isn't known. It raises a question of credibility.

I understand that, but the 2 missing words doesn't change the question in either posts and I do not see a problem with the question in the emails.

I truly hate CNN but the question in both emails seems to be reasonable for the kid to ask about arming teachers.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'll believe the kid and the family who are going through the tragedy over a known fake news outlet like CNN, thanks.

You seem to have some reading comprehension issues?

Did you miss this in the OP?
According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.

The evidence that proves the editing is from Fox News, originating with the boys family.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'll believe the kid and the family who are going through the tragedy over a known fake news outlet like CNN, thanks.

You seem to have some reading comprehension issues?

Did you miss this in the OP?
According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.

The evidence that proves the editing is from Fox News, originating with the boys family.

The editing was done to a word document. Emails aren't word documents. in other words, Glenn Haab had to copy the email and paste it into a word document...or output it to a word document if he had that option.

Whatever the metadata of the word document shows...it's worthless. Of course it's going to show Glenn Haab was the one to create the word doc and modify it because he had to paste the email text in.

CNN's word doc also would show they were the last person to modify their document. And, again, that's worthless information, too.

The metadata of the actual email is the only thing that's relevant. And neither side, that I know of, has given third parties access to their email inboxes.

***

ETA: And, of course, no media source has published the actual metadata of the word docs. Both docs probably say they were created and modified about the time they were prepared and sent to FOX News and the HuffPo.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'll believe the kid and the family who are going through the tragedy over a known fake news outlet like CNN, thanks.

You seem to have some reading comprehension issues?

Did you miss this in the OP?
According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.

The evidence that proves the editing is from Fox News, originating with the boys family.

The editing was done to a word document. Emails aren't word documents. in other words, Glenn Haab had to copy the email and paste it into a word document.

Whatever the metadata of the word document shows...it's worthless. Of course it's going to show Glenn Haab was the one to create the word doc and modify it because he had to paste the email text in.

If I was to assume that was correct, then the question is why did they provide a word document to FOX rather than simply hit FW and send the actual email trail?

CNN's word doc also would show they were the last person to modify their document. And, again, that's worthless information, too.

I missed that. Where did CNN provide a word Doc?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
I'll believe the kid and the family who are going through the tragedy over a known fake news outlet like CNN, thanks.

You seem to have some reading comprehension issues?

Did you miss this in the OP?
According to the metadata of the Word document containing the email that was provided to Fox, it appears that Glenn last edited it.

The evidence that proves the editing is from Fox News, originating with the boys family.

The editing was done to a word document. Emails aren't word documents. in other words, Glenn Haab had to copy the email and paste it into a word document.

Whatever the metadata of the word document shows...it's worthless. Of course it's going to show Glenn Haab was the one to create the word doc and modify it because he had to paste the email text in.

If I was to assume that was correct, then the question is why did they provide a word document to FOX rather than simply hit FW and send the actual email trail?

CNN's word doc also would show they were the last person to modify their document. And, again, that's worthless information, too.

I missed that. Where did CNN provide a work Doc?

It doesn't matter either way if CNN created a word doc or forwarded the email. You can edit an email when you forward it and you can even edit metadata on an email that hasn't been forwarded.

Metadata can be manipulated.

The point is, using word doc meta data to try to determine if an email was tampered with is worthless.

ETA: And, it is so convenient that no one has reported what kind of file CNN provided or published any of the metadata that determined it was only the Haabs' that 'modified' something? What makes anyone so sure that CNN did not modify the email? Why wasn't that reported?

All doubt is cast on the Haab's and CNN doesn't get any scrutiny because there are no details provided, at all, on what they sent or any of the metadata.

ETA2: And if I had to guess, I would assume we won't be hearing much else, if anything, from the Haab's, and it will all be left as some ambiguous victory for CNN.

If I had a kid going into college...I might be persuaded to shut up if the price was right.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Ok...here's something really, really odd!

The Business Insider article says this:

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.

Wha???

That makes it sound like CNN provided both the Haab's and their own "versions" of the emails????

That can't be right? Can it?

It goes on to say this....which is sort of ambiguous:

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.

BUT!!!!!

THEN!!!!

You see an image of both CNN's and the Haab's *versions* of the email AND THEY BOTH ARE CREDITED TO 'CNN!'

Screenshot:



Uh....if CNN gave the HuffPo & FOX News the Haab's *version* of the emails...then this entire situation is just a bizarre load of f**k**g crap and CNN is up to their eyeballs in it.

a reply to: toysforadults

Only if they didn't do what they're being said to have done.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: soberbacchus


Uh....if CNN gave the HuffPo & FOX News the Haab's *version* of the emails...then this entire situation is just a bizarre load of f**k**g crap and CNN is up to their eyeballs in it.

You are confused.

Haab provided Fox News with their version of the email. Fox reporting has verified this. It was in preparation for an interview.

Haab also "shopped around" the story sending it to Huffpost as well (which raises a different question of whether they were paid for it or not).

Colton Haab and his family presented the emails he received from producer Carrie Stevenson to various media outlets as proof the network was pushing him to ask a “scripted question” during the Wednesday event.

nypost.com...

I would also contend that if the Haab Family email was legit, they now have a strong legal case against CNN for libel and could be suing for $$$ and CNN knows it.
CNN chose to confront this publicly, which implies they feel secure against lawsuits and can verify the original emails.
Once an email is sent via service their are records that can be subpoenaed from ISPs and Servers. I doubt they would be responding vehemently and publicly unless they felt they could quickly prove their case, otherwise they would be putting themselves at severe legal risk.

a reply to: soberbacchus

That NYPost story doesn't give any source for their claim.

They may have simply assumed -- as most of us have -- that the Haabs provided the emails.

As I said in my edit to an earlier comment...I bet we hear no more from the Haabs. They don't need to sue CNN because they have already settled out of court, so to speak.

CNN is the responsible party for the Haab emails in the word doc with 'metadata' issues, and the Haabs did not reposnd to questions about it.

This has all been taken care of.

a reply to: soberbacchus

From the Washington Post:



Link

The WaPo also says CNN disclosed the Haabs' version of the email, in question.

CNN took care of this.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Lumenari

You sarcastic post really demonstrates how deep in cognitive dissonance people have really become. It's demonstrated by that strawman in your post used to derail this thread. At no point in the OP was there any vindication of CNN being an honest media outlet at all points. The OP focuses on the issue of Haab's family's claim and the doctored emails.

Why don't you learn to be honest with yourself and with others on here about the matter at hand. That email from Haab's family had been edited as opposed to CNN's one.

I find it fascinating that pure political hacks such as yourself throw around the word cognitive dissonance in a response.You obviously don't know what the words mean or you wouldn't have used it in that context. Do you get extra points for putting it in a post? Oh!.. and straw man (not applicable in my reply to you) and an attempt to derail (pay attention, I was talking about your post.) The only thing you missed throwing my way was an ad hominem attack. Let me help you... you are a political hack and that is a fact. Not an attack, just an observation of a fact based on your posting history.

What I did point out is that you are sucking up to CNN by posting what you did. CNN is bad. Proven fact bro.

Now why would you do that? In an interest to get to the truth?

LMAO... I'm out. Pleasure speaking at you.

a reply to: Southern Guardian


Wtf is this about?

Just the Email?

The kid is lying about what CNN told him to say?

Nothing like using emotionally traumatized kids to politicize a shooting.

How does one argue with that?

Let's see what the kid actually said.