![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/Screen-Shot-2018-09-02-at-1.41.59-PM.png\")
<\/a>Photo: YouTube\/CNN<\/p><\/div>\n
CNN\u2019S BLOCKBUSTER<\/u>\u00a0July 26 story<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 that Michael Cohen intended to tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller that he was present when Donald Trump was told in advance about his son\u2019s Trump Tower meeting with various Russians \u2013 includes a key statement about its sourcing that credible\u00a0reporting\u00a0now suggests was designed to have misled its audience. Yet CNN simply refuses to address the serious ethical and journalistic questions raised about its conduct.<\/p>\n The substance of the CNN story itself regarding Cohen \u2013 which made headline news all over all the world and which CNN hyped as a \u201cbombshell\u201d \u2013 has now been retracted by other news outlets that originally purported to \u201cconfirm\u201d CNN\u2019s story. That\u2019s because the anonymous source for this confirmation, Cohen lawyer Lanny Davis, now admits that, in essence, his \u201cconfirmation\u201d was false. As a result, both\u00a0the Washington Post<\/a>and\u00a0the NY Post<\/a>\u00a0outed Davis as their anonymous source and\u00a0then effectively retracted<\/a>\u00a0their stories \u201cconfirming\u201d parts of CNN\u2019s report.<\/p>\n CNN, however, has retracted nothing. All inquiries to the network are directed to a corporate spokesperson, who simply says: \u201cWe stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.\u201d\u00a0A\u00a0newsletter sent Sunday night<\/a>\u00a0from CNN\u2019s two media reporters, Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy, contained the same corporate language, but addressed none of the questions raised about CNN\u2019s report.<\/p>\n It\u2019s certainly possible that CNN had other sources for this story besides Davis, who now repudiates it. It\u2019s hard to see how CNN\u2019s story could be true\u00a0given that Davis, Cohen\u2019s own lawyer, explicitly says that Cohen has no\u00a0information that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting, that Cohen cannot and will not tell Mueller that this happened, and that Davis\u2019 prior claims about Cohen\u2019s knowledge and intentions are false.<\/p>\n Axios\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that Cohen testified under oath to Congress that he has no knowledge that Trump had prior knowledge of the meeting and repeated this to leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee again after CNN\u2019s report. Davis now says\u00a0Cohen \u2013 rather than intending to tell Mueller he has such information \u2013\u00a0stands by his long-time claim that he has none. So the key people with knowledge on what CNN reported \u2013 Cohen and his own lawyer \u2013 insist that CNN\u2019s reporting about what Cohen knows and intends to tell Mueller is false.<\/p>\n Nonetheless,\u00a0it\u2019s possible that other sources\u00a0did tell CNN that Cohen does have this information and intends to share it with Mueller, and that Cohen\u2019s own lawyer is either unaware of this or is lying about it. It\u2019s not likely, obviously, but it\u2019s theoretically possible. Unfortunately, CNN refuses to tell us anything about what it itself said was a \u201cblockbuster\u201d story, so it\u2019s impossible to know.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s an entirely separate, and more significant, question about CNN\u2019s behavior here; namely, the\u00a0very specific claim they made about their sourcing for that blockbuster story.\u00a0Last night, BuzzFeed\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that Davis\u00a0explicitly confessed that he was one of the anonymous sources for CNN\u2019s July 26 story, just as he was for the stories from the Washington Post and the New York Post. Last week,\u00a0CNN put Davis\u00a0on the air\u00a0with Anderson Cooper<\/a>\u00a0to deny that he was the source for that CNN story \u2013 a denial Cooper did not contest \u2013 but Davis now admits he was one of CNN\u2019s sources, if not their main source.<\/p>\n Yet remarkably, CNN, in its July 26\u00a0story,\u00a0specificaly claimed that Davis\u00a0refused to talk to CNN<\/em>\u00a0about the story or provide any comment whatsoever:<\/p>\n Only one of two things can be true here, and either is extremely significant:\u00a0(1)\u00a0<\/strong>CNN deliberately lied to its audience about Davis refusing to comment on the story when, in fact, Davis was one of the anonymous sources on which the CNN report depended, and CNN claimed Davis refused to comment in order to hide Davis\u2019 identity as one of their anonymous sources; or\u00a0(2)\u00a0<\/strong>Davis is lying now to BuzzFeed when he confessed to having been one of CNN\u2019s sources for the story.<\/p>\n How can CNN possibly justify refusing to address these questions, and refrain from informing the public about these critical matters on a story that they themselves hyped for days as a \u201cblockbuster,\u201d one of the most significant stories yet in the Trump\/Russia saga? Questions about this massive discrepancy from the Intercept to Stelter have not been answered, nor has CNN addressed this on air or with any other media outlets who have inquired. Darcy told the Intercept he was not aware of sourcing issues on the story and suggested inquiries be directed to CNN\u2019s Public Relations department.<\/p>\n If CNN lied about Davis\u00a0having refused comment (when, in fact, he was one of their anonymous sources), then this is obviously a major journalism scandal. If, by contrast, Davis \u2013 who has been treated by the U.S. media as a reliable source despite decades of lying (and who leveraged that treatment to raise\u00a0more than $150,000 in a GoFundMe \u201cTruth Fund\u201d campaign<\/a>\u00a0for Cohen to pay Davis)\u00a0\u2013 is lying about having spoken to CNN about the July 26 report, that is also a major story.<\/p>\n Yet CNN, the only ones with the ability to inform the public about what happened here, is silent. This despite the incomparable importance which CNN breathlessly told its viewers the story carried:<\/p>\n<\/a><\/div>\n<\/a><\/div>\n