The Bait Was the Story —CNN lives up-to its Communist News Network reputation once again

Don’t like reading liberal nonsense

President Donald Trump’s heated exchange with CNN correspondent Kristen Holmes generated the predictable headline: Trump “took the bait.” But that framing conveniently ignores who supplied the bait—and why it was dangled during an Oval Office event honoring a teenage lifeguard.

Holmes asked Trump to respond to a campaign-rally remark by Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff. Ossoff had accused the president of neglecting his duties to “build his ballroom and travel with Natalie,” referring to executive assistant Natalie Harp. Trump dismissed Ossoff with an insult and later called Holmes a “fake reporter.”

The White House Rapid Response account subsequently attacked Holmes in personal terms, even invoking her children. Someday they will A find her work and see how vile she was, essentially.

What has not been established is the insinuation underlying the question. Melanie is no Hillary and Harp is no no supermodel, making the entire jester a side show in the castle of the king!

Harp is a presidential employee whose unusual access and influence are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. She reportedly supplies Trump with printed material, assists with his social-media communications and travels with him.

Reporters may fairly investigate whether any aide possesses excessive influence or bypasses normal safeguards. But that is different from circulating suggestive gossip merely because the aide is a younger woman.

No evidence presented in coverage of Monday’s exchange established an improper personal relationship between Trump and Harp. Holmes was accurately quoting the political attack made by Ossoff; that does not make Ossoff’s insinuation a proven fact. Reporting should preserve that distinction.

The president’s response was unnecessarily personal. Calling a journalist “fake” does not answer her question, and dragging her children into the dispute was an escalation that distracted from the White House’s stronger argument: the question imported campaign-trail innuendo into an event intended to recognize a young hero.

That distraction matters. A president confronting wars, diplomatic challenges, border enforcement and violent crime has serious questions to answer. Reporters should press him on policy, results and the conduct of his administration. When they instead amplify a provocative personal jab, they should not act astonished when the resulting confrontation eclipses every substantive issue in the room.

Criticism must nevertheless be consistent. Conservatives cannot object to insinuations about Harp while responding with comments about the appearance, femininity or families of political opponents and reporters.

Natalie Harp’s blond hair and looks are irrelevant, just as comparisons with First Lady Melania Trump are irrelevant.

Harp should be evaluated by her qualifications, conduct and influence—not by whether someone considers her glamorous. And Trump works like no other president and abhors DEI. He hires the best loyal hardworking smart people willing to take the risk to Make America Great Again. That’s what voters wanted and voted for. ReAmercanize America! And Harp is a worker bee not a mistress. What CNN did to her deserves a lawsuit for defamation.

The fair conclusion is therefore more restrained than either side’s preferred narrative. CNN’s reporter asked a legitimate public figure about a senator’s allegation, but the allegation contained an unsupported personal insinuation. Trump reacted combatively, and his communications team made the controversy worse by turning a defensible criticism of journalistic priorities into a personal attack.

If Trump “took the bait,” the press and his political opponents should acknowledge that they deliberately baited the hook. The White House, meanwhile, should recognize that refusing to bite would have denied them the spectacle they wanted.

That is not “fake news” in the literal sense. It is something more familiar: political theater packaged as public accountability.