Oh, NOW Robin Roberts Thinks There Were ‘a Lot of Red Flags’ in Smollett Case?

Media Research Center ^ | February 25, 2019 | Scott Whitlock

[C19fan]

Good Morning America co-host Robin Roberts, the woman who refused to say the word “alleged” when interviewing Jussie Smollett, has suddenly discovered that there were “a lot of red flags” in the hate crimes case, now widely dismissed as a hoax. Roberts got a do-over on Monday as she interviewed Chicago’s superintendent of police, Eddie Johnson.

At times, Roberts seemed tougher on Johnson than Smollett, demanding details and offering follow-ups. But first, the host tried to rewrite history and pretend she saw problems from the start: “Even though you were saying early on that there was no reason not to believe his story, there were a lot of red flags that a lot of people saw and you all had questions.”

[C19fan]

Just admit Robin you swallowed the story hook, line, and sinker.

[cuban leaf]

Compilation of early news reports:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSNY1yYPPYA

It’s as much fun as those election night compilations.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

Robin Roberts came out as the second biggest fool in this entire debacle. Replay her ass-kissing interview of Smollett now. It doesn’t stand the test of time well. The more she opens her mouth and tries to re-write history, the more it reminds people of what a willing dupe she was for Smollett.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yes I wish that homosexual Robin Roberts would admit, that she conducted a powder puff interview with homosexual Jussie in order to create sympathy. This hoax fell right into the narrative of hatred which the leftists and homosexual activists keep pushing.

[ClearCase_guy]

PSSSSSSSST — there’s a lot of red flags in Obama’s birth certificate case too ...

[Sarah Barracuda]

Because now its “Safe” to go after the homo Trump hating liar..before they had to kiss his ass because he’s a Trump hater, but now that he’s a confirmed liar, its all good they can trash him now

[samtheman]

Two words she should hear but never will: “you’re fired”

[dp0622]

Can’t be.

He wrote on the check it was for weight training

That’s fool proof evidence he was innocent.

Or at least it was in his head.

[UCANSEE2]

Robin, Robin, Robin. It’s not about Robin, nor what he said the first time or the second time. It’s not about what he knew or thought.

AS IN ALL CASES with the MSM, it’s about what the studio director has scripted for him to say.

The things he said at first, the things he says now are what he has been told to say.

[treetopsandroofs]

“PSSSSSSSST — there’s a lot of red flags in Obama’s birth certificate case too ...”

Shhh. Many here were quite content to believe that the Fraud was eligible.

[\/\/ayne]

Isn’t he still claiming innocence? Hey, we can bat it around all we want in comments but official representatives of government and the news should just stick to the facts. A huge number of them looking like idiots either way.

[Ann Archy]

She wanted her fellow GAY Black person to be right....period.

[RinaseaofDs]

She’s a whore. She got paid to lay down. She got caught inflagrante delicto and now she’s claiming to be a therapist.

[stylin19a]

Her questions look like she’s trying to get a “gotcha” on the police so it rehabs her interview with Jussie.

[GOPJ]

“ROBERTS: The check that we saw in Eva Pilgrim’s report. The $3500. Did the brothers specifically say that was for the attack?

JOHNSON: They said that he paid them $3500 with a check.

ROBERTS: But did they say what it was for?

JOHNSON: Yeah. To carry out this incident.”

---

Guess the bimbo thought Smollett should have written in the check ‘for’ line: ‘fake hate crime violence’

[SMARTY]

Ha!

These clowns routinely display the most predictably, uncritical, wholesale acceptance of something everyone else on earth sees as a sham right from the start... and they ought to crawl in a hole and never show their faces again.

Of course, what am I saying??? Without an equally pre conditioned, half-educated public to delightfully accept this drivel... these creeps wouldn't have jobs.

[nikos1121]

It was a soft ball interview, but she had the look on her face, of like, “Are you jiving me, Man?”

You just knew, that she wasn’t a true believer...like all the WHITE reporters out there, but she didn’t have the courage to do a really thorough interview.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's so much easier to believe that they never believe what they say, and that everything they do is timed to advance an agenda.

Any "red flags" are simply inputs into the day's talking points designed to minimize them. Today's acknowledgement of "red flags" is just another talking point that serves today's agenda.

-PJ

[Liz]

Roberts swallowed Smollett's story hook, line, and sinker.

That she did. She must be in big trouble with ABC's PTB.

===============================

Smollet was a picture-perfect, fighting mad victim as he spoke to an unblinking Robin Roberts on ABC's GMA.

Smollett reinvented himself as an especially fierce kind of victim...a cool hero. “I fought the f**k back,” he told fellow-believer Roberts.

==================================================

THE BLOWBACK MUSTA BEEN INTENSE--EARLY ON, ABC BROUGHT OUT THE BIG GUNS:

As Smollett Story Unravels, ABC Defends Robin Roberts' Softball Interview on GMA
By Kristine Marsh, newsbusters.org | February 18, 2019

ABC’s Good Morning America team went into full damage control mode Monday, after news broke over the weekend that actor Jussie Smollett had allegedly paid two men to stage his assault. Just last Thursday, anchor Robin Roberts had given the actor a softball interview, even refusing to call his story of a Trump supporter assaulting him, “alleged.” Leading into the report, Roberts finally did call the quickly unraveling story “alleged:”

"A new twist in the Jussie Smollett case. The actor firing back this morning as the story of his alleged attack faces questions. Police in Chicago say they're working to corroborate allegations that Smollett paid two men to stage the assault," she stated. In reporter Eva Pilgrim’s report, she tried to save face for ABC, stressing that police had said Smollett was “cooperating fully” with the investigation up until this point. Pilgrim did not mention that the Chicago Police Department also said Smollett would only give partial, redacted phone records to them.

Roberts followed up by defending her interview with the actor, as appropriate given the knowledge they had at the time: This case is ever evolving. Head-spinning. Changing. When I sat down with Jussie, it was Tuesday night in Chicago. At the time to give his first account publicly give his first account of what he said happened. And we have to remember, at that time, on Tuesday, police officers were saying that his account was consistent. It was credible. And that he was being cooperative. This was all before the interview aired on Thursday and then we found out about the brothers. Afterwards, the ABC team brought on the network’s legal analyst, Dan Abrams, to help do more damage control, spinning Roberts’ interview as more even-handed than it was by hyping the few times she had gingerly brought up skeptics of his story:

[I] have to say, Robin, even in the interview you did, you were talking about the skeptics. You were talking about the people who questioned his account. So, it's not new this idea that there are questions about what happened. What's new is that the police now seem to be making it clear that they believe the brothers and have, at the very least, serious questions about Jussie.

To end their segment, ABC hammered home how they weren’t responsible for how much airtime his problematic story got to begin with. GMA’sweekend anchor Dan Harris worried that just Smollett, not their network or the media as a whole, had caused damage for actual victims of hate crimes. Dan Abrams agreed, even admitting that the media “wanted” to believe Smollett’s account.

Again, the ABC team wouldn’t acknowledge the media’s role in spreading his dubious account:

DAN HARRIS: If Smollett made this up, what kind of impact does this have on other people that come forward to tell stories that are true about assault?
ABRAMS: I think that is the real impact here. I think this would have a big impact on the country. Which is, you want to believe someone. I mean, you're talking about an allegation of homophobia, racism, politics, all of it in one allegation. If it turns out that this well-known person just made this up, it's going to, I think, lead some people to have questions about coming forward. It will lead others having questions about whether they believe people's accounts. This is having a much bigger impact I think.....

"Yes. It is a very interesting turn in this case. I know people who talked to Jussie over the weekend. He insists that he had nothing to do the story. The more you hear, the more questions that are being raised. The investigation we should stress is still underway," she gushed.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2019/02/18/smollett-story-unravels-abc-defends-robin-roberts-softball

[cnsmom]

Questionable sexual identity should be the first red flag going forward. I’d like to know how many of the known hoaxes came from people from that community.