More Unprofessional Behavior: CNN's Dana Loesch Bullies Reporter at CPAC

So I already wrote about how Loesch went out with a Guy Fawkes mask to yell at the Occupy crowds outside of CPAC, despite the fact that many other CPAC attendees were engaging in calm discussions with the crowd and were easily able to travel freely in and out of the hotel.

It turns out Loesch also chased down and yelled at other Occupiers the next day:


And, even worse, Loesch decided to bully a reporter for having the audacity of asking Andrew Breitbart questions about his pledge to boycott CPAC (which he quickly abandoned when offered a speaking slot). Loesch told the reporter that she wasn't "acting like a lady" because she asked Breitbart questions:

Just to point out the obvious, there's a big difference between getting into an argument with a reporter when speaking privately to them, versus loudly lecturing them while surrounded by hundreds of supporters.

Politico wrote an interesting article pointing out that CNN has not been booking Loesch since her nasty comments about urinating on corpses. However, she is still listed as a contributor. Is this really how CNN wants their brand defined? According to the guests on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources, it sure doesn't seem that way.

Unprofessional: CNN's Dana Loesch Leaves CPAC To Yell At Occupy Protesters

Earlier this week, CNN suspended Roland Martin, telling Politico's Dylan Byers in a statement:

"CNN executives want to raise the bar on the level of professionalism off air by contributors in general, and that too is under discussion," the executive wrote.

So here's a question. How "professional" is it for a CNN "political analyst" to chase down a crowd of Occupy D.C. protesters, yell at them about rape, and accuse them of shooting at the White House? Because that's what Dana Loesch and her husband, Chris (also a former member of the St. Louis Tea Party), did earlier today. Here's a screen shot of the two of them:

And here's the video from Timcast, where you can hear Dana Loesch yell, among other things, "What about the people who shot at the White House from your camp? What about the people who threw smoke bombs from your camp?"


Update: Some of the people paid by Breitbart to be devoted fans are claiming that Loesch was "held hostage" by Occupiers. This is clearly false. There are hours of video footage showing CPACers engaging in civil conversations with the Occupiers and moving freely in and out of the hotel. Only people like Loesch and Breitbart, who were obviously looking for confrontations, engaged in useless shouting matches. Furthermore, the police had asked CPACers to back away from Occupiers earlier in the evening.

Dana Loesch Punks CNN

Since her disgraceful comments cheering marines who urinated on corpses, CNN has wisely kept Dana Loesch out of most of their political coverage including:

• The South Carolina CNN debate.
• South Carolina primary night.
• Post debate analysis of the NBC debate in Florida.
• The Florida CNN debate.
• Florida primary coverage.

So it seems pretty clear that they've been trying to keep her away from their most important coverage, in contrast to previous primaries. However, they did have her on one time since the scandal and, unsurprisingly, she used the opportunity to further damage CNN's credibility. From the transcript:

CNN contributor, Dana Loesch joining me now. So, Dana, Billy Tucker, the leader of Florida's largest Tea Party group has chosen not to endorse a candidate. Why and could an endorsement by Tucker impact all of those undecideds?

DANA LOESCH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It could, absolutely, Kyra. It could very much impact those undecided voters. This is sort of the bittersweet thing, the double-edged sword about the Tea Party movement.

Because it's such a large, all encompassing movement, there's a ton of different movements that are sovereign. Each group can decide what it wants to do. I know there have been a couple of Tea Party groups in Florida that have endorsed Newt Gingrich.

There were a couple of Tea Party groups in South Carolina that endorsed him, as well, and different parts of the country. But really from my perspective and the group I'm with in St. Louis, the Gateway Grass Roots Initiative.

One of the really founding things of the movement is that you don't endorse candidates, at least I've always thought that, especially in a primary, you don't get involved and endorse candidates because it seems a little bit too close to being used by candidates.

There are a couple of things going on here. First, despite breaking up with the St. Louis Tea Party, Loesch is appealing to the group she created, the "Gateway Grassroots Initiative," to establish her "expertise" on conservative activism. Second, she's shamelessly using CNN to promote her "group".

So what's the problem? The problem is that there's no evidence whatsoever that suggests the "Gateway Grassroots Initiative" is a real group at all, as opposed to a disorganized webpage with lazy brainstorming ideas. Unlike the St. Louis Tea Party, GGI hasn't organized large rallies, hasn't worked on elections, hasn't hosted any public events, and in fact hasn't really done anything at all! They have an "Individual Initiative" project that basically consists of people saying "wouldn't it be nice if we did X" with essentially zero follow-up. After existing for more than a month, they only have 340 followers on Twitter and 280 "likes" on facebook.


In comparison, after one month, Occupy St. Louis had over 6,000 "likes" on facebook and over 1,000 followers on Twitter.

In fact, there is no other evidence to suggest that they are having any impact in St. Louis or anywhere else, despite being initially promoted on Glenn Beck's and Stephen K. Bannon's radio shows and Breitbart's web sites.

Here's what one conservative Missouri activist had to say about the group:

It's been such a #fail. I'm not sure how she holds her head up on her 20th "project" that fails. It's embarrassing. You're exactly right, they have done nothing. Literally nothing.

(as always, though this quote is anonymous, I'm happy to provide more info to any journalists who inquire, though of course I'd have to clear it first with my source)

So basically Loesch is punking CNN in two ways. First, she's pretending to be an "expert" based on a group created after she left the tea party that has done absolutely nothing and appears to exist only online. Second, she's using CNN to promote her own personal endeavors, before those endeavors have done anything to show that they're viable. This is what happens when the mainstream media panders Breitbart editors, who represent a fundamentally dishonest approach to information far more than the represent any kind of true conservatism.

CNN's Dana Loesch Says She Hates The Media And Is Trying To Change It From Within

Ever wonder what a frequently frothing-at-the-mouth serial liar (aka "a Briebart editor") thinks about getting airtime from the mainstream media? Well, you're about to find out, because Dana Loesch explained on air that she "hates" the media and is trying to "change it from within" via "liberty evangelism."

Loesch, possibly bitter from being excluded from CNN's South Carolina debate, but nevertheless given the incredible honor of appearing on Blog Talk Radio with her fellow Breitbart editors to analyze the debate, was responding to a question about whether John King should have started the debate by asking Gingrich about allegations from his ex-wife. Here's what she had to say:

Loesch went on to say that Gingrich shared some of the blame for having an affair.

So basically, Loesch gets free publicity from CNN, gets paid by them, and in return tells right-wingers how much she hates them.

CNN's Dana Loesch Pushes Old, Debunked National Enquirer Rumors of Obama Affair

After news broke that ABC would be airing an interview with Newt Gingrich's ex-wife, disgraced CNN "political analyst" Dana Loesch decided this would be the perfect time to start pushing completely empty "Obama affair" rumors that originated in the National Enquirer. Here's what Loesch was tweeting:

The link from Loesch's "lets talk this" tweet goes to a conspiracy mongering nonsensical post that claims that "Hilary Clinton knew about" an "Obama affair" during the 2008 campaign but decided not to say anything because she needed a favor from him. The evidence for this claim? Absolutely none: just the author stating, "According to online reports..." with no link.

And the premise that there's an affair is based entirely on a National Enquirer article that didn't even claim there was an affair. Yes, I know, the Enquirer actually got one right with the John Edwards story, but in this case, the Enquirer uses a second-hand account that, even if all the details are true, doesn't show anything. The only claim is that Obama was at a hotel at roughly the same time as Vera Baker, a major funraiser and confidant. The rumors, which actually trace back to 2004, were pretty thoroughly debunked by Media Matters as nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor after the Enquirer story broke:

So, to sum up: the story is rehashed rumors about events that supposedly took place in 2004 but which no one has substantiated with anything remotely resembling credible evidence. They have been flatly denied by the woman supposedly involved. And the only thing new here are the rumors about a video that no one is claiming (even anonymously) to have seen.

Yet here Loesch is pushing the story on Twitter, and on Big Journalism, where she wrote:

Does this mean we’ll also start hearing about Vera Baker from broadcast media?

CNN, the "Cable News Network," continues to be an embarrasment to the word "news."

RT News Slams CNN Over Loesch Fiasco

"If you think that paying people like Dana Loesch and giving her airtime to spread her vile commentary give you some shred of credibility, I don't know what else to do but laugh. Or maybe cry. I don't know. Over all, I kinda just feel sorry for you. The only thing that would give the mainstream media any credibility in this day and age would be returning to covering actual news. For example: the war in Afghanistan."

Enjoy:


(BTW, it's a small thing, but I do have to criticize RT News for the fact that their original coverage of this story did not credit me with first reporting on it. Huffington Post also covered the story as if they had discovered the footage themselves)

CNN Political Analyst Questions Loesch's Integrity Because of Remarks

Tommy Christopher at Mediaite grabed some footage of CNN political analyst Goldie Taylor on Don Lemon's program describing why urinating on corpses is wrong and calling out Dana Loesch for praising the people who did it. Taylor is a former marine and said the following about the incident:

Taylor told Lemon that the tape wasn’t representative of the Marine Corps that she belonged to, and that “When I look at that, and look at what four marines did to defame my Marine Corps, I’m disgusted.”

She went on to say that the four Marines should be court-martialed.

Then she said what she thought of Loesch's comments:

Lemon asked Taylor about people who defended these Marines’ actions. I’ve heard it,” Taylor said. “And I’ve heard it on this air, frankly. That is disgusting in and of itself, not as satire not as a joke but to say you would ‘drop trou’ and do the same thing, I question someone’s integrity who would say something like that. I want to know if they understand what our young men and women are up against every day. I don’t want to demonize the men and women who serve our country. I honor them, and served alongside them, and am proud of them. But when something like this happens, we have to stand up and call it for the behavior that it is.”

Taylor, by the way, is not alone. Multiple CNN employees criticized Loesch's comments and questioned why she was at the network. For example:

"I can't imagine someone really thinking that, it is so outrageous," said one CNN reporter who requested anonymity. "I think she is trying to garner attention to herself, and that is sad. If that is what she truly believes, she has issues. If you look at that video, I don't care who you are, your stomach should turn."

And:

Another regular CNN journalist added: "I am of the school of thought, 'Why aren't we putting people who are knowledgeable on the air?' I'll just say 'Ewww.' I think it's in poor taste."

And:

"What's interesting is how the kid gloves are applied to outlandish comments made by the likes of Erick Erickson or Dana Loesch and how it has a negative impact on the CNN brand," said the contributor, who also requested anonymity. "There really is no pushback or no real conversation that says, 'Look, you make these kinds of comments or you write these kinds of wild, crazy stuff, that's just not what we're about.' It simply doesn't happen. I think there is fear of saying anything to them because they are Tea Party folks, and there has been a clear effort on the part of our political team to court that whole Tea Party thought process, if you will."

"The danger is always the negative impact on your whole political coverage," the contributor added. "Because clearly you want there to be a point of view, but there is a difference between a point of view and being so far off the rails it defies logic."

Yup, Loesch is embarrassing the employees at CNN who actually have respect for the truth and honest debate.

One criticism of Tommy Christopher's piece for Mediaite; he repeated the suggestion pushed by right-wing media that Bill Maher's comments on Friday were substantively the same as Loesch's. Actually, Maher opened his comments by saying that he was sure that no one condoned the actions. He later said that if the people urinated on were the Taliban, and if they had done horrible things like honor rapes, then he's "not that upset" about it. In sharp contrast, Loesch not only condoned the behavior without any caveats, she openly cheered for it, and said she would "drop trou and do it herself." (not to mention the fact that Maher is a comedian and Loesch is a "political analyst," and there are a lot of things that comedians can get away with that political analysts couldn't, though in this case what Loesch said is clearly *far more* extreme).

So you might disagree with Maher's comments, but they weren't even close to what Loesch said, and it's time to put that particular right-wing meme to rest.

Update: Tommy Christopher says he was drawing a different comparison than the one I focused on. Fair enough, although I still think his post is written in a way that feeds into the right-wing meme that "Maher said the exact same thing." And an earlier Mediaite post by Josh Feldman, linked to by Christopher, seems to explicitly make that claim:

Maher appears to be echoing similar sentiments to Dana Loesch, who earlier today said she didn’t understand why the video was so controversial, adding “I’d drop trou and do it too.”

Dana Loesch Disinvited From Conservative Event For Disgraceful Comments

For this past week, Dana Loesch had been hyping an event in O'Fallon, Illinois titled "Women, Liberty, and America's Future," hosted by the Illinois Policy Institute, Smart Girl Politics, and the Independent Women's Forum. Loesch was supposed to be the main speaker at the event. Here's the description from their event invitation:

Join the Illinois Policy Institute, the Independent Women's Forum and Smart Girl Politics for a breakfast featuring Dana Loesch, Editor-in-Chief of Big Journalism. She will be leading a discussion on women, liberty, and America's future. Dana will address how liberty principles offer attractive policy solutions to the big challenges facing women today. Both men and women are welcome!

However, on Friday night, Loesch abruptly announced that she wouldn't be attending:

Andrew Breitbart, being interviewed on FTR radio, said that Loesch was disinvited to the event because of the disgraceful comments she made where she applauded marines urinating on dead bodies and said she would "drop trou" and "do it too." Here's the audio from Breitbart, who starts by whining that "almost nobody in the conservative movement" came to his defense when he was booted from ABC election night coverage and then explains the situation with Loesch:


The Illinois Policy Institute is a conservative think tank that describes it's philosophy, in part, as follows:

The Illinois Policy Institute is dedicated to promoting the principles of liberty in all levels of government. While the word liberty can be interpreted in many ways and applied to many different arenas we focus specifically on economic liberty and free market principles.

If even they think Loesch's comments crossed the line, then what in the world is up with CNN?

Reminder: CNN's Dana Loesch "Loves the Smell of a Fire When It's Burning Tyranny"

Now that a lot more people recognize CNN "political analyst" Dana Loesch's charming voice, I thought it might be helpful to remind people of some other amazing comments she made. At at the tea party rally outside of Russ Carnahan's office, the day before health care reform was finally passed, the tea partiers "booted and torched" a photo of Congressman Russ Carnahan. As the photo was burning, Loesch said "this is what happens when you don't respect the will of your constituents." And later, "Mmmm, I love the way a fire smells when it's burning tyranny! Get me some marshmallows!"

Watch:


The full video, which shows the tea partiers throwing boots at the photo, was originally posted at Sharp Elbows' tea party blog. This was the day before the St. Louis tea party (without Loesch) carried a coffin to Carnahan's home.

Update: Loesch says she was there to "take a photo for her station." Uhhhhh, so? How does that change the fact that she's on video cheering an effigy burning of a U.S. Congressman?

Dana Loesch to The St. Louis Tea Party:

Throw me the idol! I'll throw you the whip!

They shouldn't have thrown her the idol.

The Secret Smear Campaigns of Dana Loesch and the St. Louis Tea Party

One of the great things about my recent confrontation with Breitbart and Loesch is that Loesch repeated many of her standard disingenuous attacks and I was able to challenge her directly about them. This revealed just how sad and pathetic her smears really were.

Let's start with one of the more shameful examples. Loesch and the tea party have frequently claimed that I'm "racist" because I "laughed" at a press conference where Kenneth Gladney was called "An Uncle Tom Negro." Here's video of Dana and her husband and fellow tea partier Chris Loesch claiming that I'm "on video" laughing at Gladney being called an "Uncle Tom:"

A few clarifications about the press conference. First, the NAACP was one of the groups at the press conference, but the conference itself was actually composed of several different groups. Zaki Baruti, the guy who made the "Uncle Tom" comments because he believed that Gladney was faking his injuries and attacking the NAACP as a direct result of the fact that tea party and Breitbart's sites were continuously raising money for Gladney, might be a member of the local NAACP, but he's more commonly associated with the United African People's Organization (UAPO).

I distinctly remember being uncomfortable with the term, and in fact the video Breitbart's sites used to claim that the NAACP was "racist" proves that I did not laugh at the claim. In the video, I'm sitting immediately to the left of Zaki (from the viewer's perspective), and it's obvious that I don't laugh when he uses the terms "negro" or "Uncle Tom:"


It's pretty despicable for CNN contributor Dana Loesch to accuse someone of racism based on a completely dishonest claim about a video, but that's exactly what she does.

Second, Loesch also claims multiple times during the discussion that I'm a "paid SEIU blogger." Now I happen to like the people I know in the local SEIU, and have no objection being associated with them, but I've never received a dime from the organization. Yet here's video of Loesch alleging that I'm paid by SEIU and, even more, that I was paid by them to ask Breitbart questions:

So what's the evidence for this claim? Loesch says that SEIU "called me their blogger" at the same press conference referred to above. Actually, there were no employees from SEIU at the conference. Elston McCowan and Perry Molens were both former members of SEIU, and here's the video Loesch was basing her claims on:

So, McCowan, one of the defendants in the Gladney case, referred to me as "our blogger" and the silly tea party claimed this was conclusive evidence that I'm being paid by SEIU. Of course, the NAACP and the Green Party were at the rally, so with similar flimsy logic they could have claimed that "our blogger" means that I'm a "Green Party Blogger" or an "NAACP blogger" or a "UAPO blogger." Of course, I'm none of those things. When McCowan referred to me as "our blogger," he just meant that I was the local blogger who has covered the case thoroughly from a standpoint that didn't immediately assume that McCowan and Molens were guilty (and, of course, the courts found them not guilty after only 40 minutes of deliberation). So, again, a ridiculous claim based on no evidence. I suppose, though, that it's easier for the tea party to try to invalidate me by tying me to one of their grand SEIU conspiracy theories than to admit that I'm just a local graduate student who happens to care about the truth in my free time.

Speaking of trying to tie me to larger institutions in order to promote their unhinged conspiracy theories, Loesch also accuses me of "using Washington Unversity's resources to smear a private citizen:"

No need to post video or links to respond to this one, since it's so ridiculous. Obviously, a student choosing to ask Andrew Breitbart questions on a Saturday afternoon in early August while using my phone to record the conversation is not the same thing as "using Washington University resources to smear a private citizen." This is nothing more than a lame "we know where you work" threat.

Finally, and probably most despicably of all. Loesch accuses me of "stalking her children:"

When I ask her what evidence she has for this obnoxious claims, she responsds, "you've clicked on the site where my children are at." Based on conversations with other tea partiers, I know that this obnoxious claim from Loesch comes from the fact that one time, after Loesch tweeted a link to her Mommy blog from her political twitter account, I linked to that post in one of my blog posts. You can read my post here.

Now, I have to admit, the post is somewhat petty by my usual standards (though it would be typical fare from Breitbart bloggers or the tea party). I took her post demanding that people pay her if they want her to mention their products and used it as an opportunity to remind people of the legitimate political story that Loesch shut out and attacked Ed Martin's GOP primary opponent after Martin gave thousands of dollars to Chris Loesch's business.

Though it is a serious ethical problem that Loesch refused to disclose this conflict of interest while cheering Martin's campaign, I admit the connection between that and her post claiming she requires money for product endorsements is a little bit of a stretch. However, that post I linked too was not at all about her children and was entirely about her patriotic desire to make money via endorsements, so to use this to claim that I'm "stalking her children" is absolutely despicable. The claim that someone involved other people's children is a serious allegation and not something to be tossed out as a cheap attempt to silence critics or demonize opponents.

It's pretty amazing that CNN allows their name to be dragged into the mud and slime by paying Loesch as a "political analyst."

Loesch Say Liberals Are "Right-Wing" Just Like the Nazis, But Accidently Smears Herself

I'm not very interested in making broad sweeping generalizations about political ideologies based on the actions of fringe extremists, but a recent post by Dana Loesch is so mind-numbingly dumb, even by her standards, that I feel compelled to respond. Loesch appears to be arguing that the media is making a huge mistake in using the term "right-wing" to apply to both modern U.S. conservatives and to the conservative, immigrant-hating, Islamaphobic, Christian fundamentalist apparently responsible for the recent terrorist attack in Oslo. Loesch claims, amazingly, that the "true meaning" of the term "right-wing" actually corresponds to modern day liberals. For dramatic effect, she posts a photo of a Nazi driving a knife through the Bible.

Loesch's argument rests upon a small passage from Wikipedia. One might think that someone trying to explain the definition of a word might consult dictionaries that, you know, provide definitions for words, but we're not dealing with people who are in any way tethered to reality here. We should just be happy she didn't cite Gateway Pundit. Anyway, the Wikipedia passage states the following:

The terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution, referring to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported preserving the institutions of the Ancien Régime (the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church). Use of the term “Right” became more prominent after the second restoration of the French monarchy in 1815 with the Ultra-royalists.

From this, she somehow infers the following:

Using Norway’s government as an example: Norway is ruled by the Labour Party, a socialist party, and is affiliated with the Party of European Socialists. The Labour Party embraces the Keynesian economic theory and more centralized state control. This, according to the proper definition of the term “right wing,” would classify not only Norway’s socialist Labour Party as “right wing,” but would also classify America’s Democratic Socialists as “right wing.” Nazis, officially the National Socialist Party, would be correctly classified as “right wing.” Ideologies which oppose such heavy-handed government control would be accurately considered “left-wing.”

It's honestly hard to even know where to begin with such a ridiculous argument. First of all, she's not even capable of reading and understanding the full Wikipedia article, and instead relies on cherry-picking quotes. For example, the same article she cites says that "right-wing" is defined in opposition to "socialism or social democracy" and includes the philosophies of, "conservatism, Christian democracy, liberalism, libertarianism, and nationalism." These considerations, of course, point to the exact opposite of the conclusion she draws. But Loesch can't even settle for cherry-picking her quotes: she also selectively ignores parts of the passages that she does quote. Out of all the various characteristics of the original "right," she chooses just one property, "heavy-handed government control," as the only relevant defining feature. The fact that pretty much no one else took that to be the only defining feature seems irrelevant to her. One gets the impression that if she had seen a painting of someone on the "right" from France with long hair, she would have declared that the correct definition of "right-wing" means 'long hairs," and would have been happy to label anyone who disagrees with her as "historically ignorant."

Even if her description of the original term had been correct (it's clearly not), you have to wonder what cave she's been living in to think that the "true meaning" of a term is determined solely by it's original usage. Language and the meaning of words change over time, and claiming that you're using the 1815 definition of a term is a pretty good way to ensure that no one will want to speak with you.

Furthermore, what exactly is the point of Loesch's desperate attempt to rewrite history? The media wasn't calling the apparent shooter "right-wing" because his email address was RightWing178383@aol.com. They called him right wing because his political views lined up with the political views of the far right in the U.S. (and Europe): he's anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, a Christian fundamentalist, etc. So if the term "right wing" was mistakenly applied to him, then it's also mistakenly applied to a lot of conservatives in the U.S., but this doesn't change the fact that the Oslo shooter's views align more with them than with U.S. liberals. So even if Loesch's revisionary history was correct, it would have zero relevance for the discussion of the guy's politics.

But finally, the most hilarious thing in my opinion is that Loesch, in doing her traditional pose-as-an-intellectual-by-carelessly-throwing-together-some-quotes-from-Wikipedia routine, has managed to smear herself. She started her essay with the following;

I loathe when American conservatives define themselves as “right wing” anything, even in jest — just as I loathe when the liberal press uses it as identification for American conservatives — because it is an inaccurate use of the term.

She later says "the media" is "ignorant" and "callous" for using the term. So isn't it just kind of hilarious to find that Loesch describes herself as "right-wing" on her radio show profile:


Yep, a proud "member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." Which, by her brilliant reasoning standards, means she is One With the Nazis, and the hippies for that matter. Just another day of thoughtful analysis from this CNN employee.

H/t to @BillStreeter who had an interesting Twitter exchange with Loesch on this subject yesterday.

Breitbart Disgustingly Accuses Weiner of "Having Relationships With Young Girls"

CNN shamefully decided to have Andrew Breitbart on today to talk about his websites' role in the #Weinergate scandal, and naturally he manages to sink to a new, disgusting low. Breitbart describes Representative Weiner following people on Twitter as "having relationships" with "quite young girls." For anyone who isn't familiar, following someone on Twitter means absolutely nothing. It is about 1/500th as significant a relationship as being friends with someone on facebook. So for Breitbart to hint at some kind of sexual impropriety based on Twitter follows is unbelievably irresponsible. Shame on CNN.

Here are Breitbart's idiotic claims:

Loesch Says Critics of Lila Rose are "Feminist Mesiahs Who Make Their Living Fighting For Female Genocide"

Lila Rose, a protege of disgraced highly-edited-video-smear-artist James O'Keefe, recently released a lame attack on Planned Parenthood that was shown to be doctored (despite her claims to the contrary) and ridiculously claimed that Planned Parenthood supported child prostitution while ignoring the fact that Planned Parenthood had already reported the incidents to the authorities.

Loesch recently spoke at CPAC about the incident, and claimed that the people criticizing Rose's smear job were, "Feminist Messiahs who make their living advocating for women while also fighting for female genocide." Observe (starting at 2:02):


Nice work CNN.

h/t Dana Busted.