Fake, Friendless, and Full of Shit
Scott Jennings is an arrogant attention whore.
There was no point, whatsoever, in addressing the statement he made on CNN back in July, unless you've faded back into irrelevance and need a bump to get you through the week.
Beyond being a whore, he's trying to gloat, to brag, to peacock about the bald-faced lie he told to the CNN panel, and it might work on your everyday couple of newlywed cousins in Palatka, FL, or Lauren Boebert, but...
Not on us.
This is the smoking gun.
This is a massive retreat from his original position. In the initial broadcast, he presented the information as Objective Fact (Universal Truth). In this quote, he's downgraded it to Subjective Perception (My Truth).
"as I personally knew them," is an admission. Jennings is flat out admitting his "facts" were merely his beliefs, and that creates a logical paradox. If the "facts" were only known to him, and the outcome (McConnell’s return) proved those "facts" false, then he wasn't a victim of a media smear, he was simply...wrong.
It’s a linguistic escape hatch, a get out of jail free card for the confidently incorrect.
By adding the qualifier “as I personally knew them,” Jennings isn’t defending the truth. He’s defending his own ignorance. It’s a rhetorical sleight-of-hand. In the first act, they present the information as an objective monolith, carved in stone for the audience to swallow whole. But the moment the cracks appear and the evidence mounts, they pivot. Suddenly, they aren't a purveyor of falsehoods; they're just a victim of outdated data.
He’s trying to transform his lie into a simple misunderstanding.
It’s the difference between saying “The sky is green.” and “I believed the sky was green.' The first is a claim to reality; the second is a claim to a feeling. You can't debunk a feeling. By retreating into the sanctuary of his own vain perception, he moved the goalposts from the realm of verifiable fact to the realm of personal experience.
It’s a convenient back door that doesn't just let him out of the room; it erases the room entirely. The moment those words left his fat mouth, that twenty-minute phone call with Mitch McConnell, that Jennings sold as an undeniable truth, becomes nothing more than a diary entry he decided to blab about on air.
The phrase isn’t a defense of truth; it is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
Jennings posits that there is a conflict between "facts" and "excitement." It’s a logical category error. A fact is not boring; it’s simply verifiable. Portraying this as Facts vs. Excitement, is deceptive. He’s trying to make skeptics and disbelievers look like thrill-seekers and himself as a purveyor of dry, self-evident truth, but you don’t need proof. He’s above proof. The words leaving his mouth are all you need to feel the power of truth.
Get the fuck outta here…
Jennings provided no proof. Nothing. Not a goddamned thing. And if the statement were really a fact, the proof would be the most exciting part; it would be the kill shot that silenced the naysayers, but he didn’t take that shot, did he? No, instead, he threw tantrums, insulted people, and kept having to dig his panties out of his ass, and no, he did not offer anything to validate and verify his bullshit lies either.
And claiming his “facts” aren’t exciting enough for a media that orgasms over stories they can sensationalize and exploit is just…laughable.
Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, using "bottom-feeding" as a pejorative is a classic psychological projection.
Because everyone knows bottom-feeder eat the nasty shit others leave behind. It implies destitution, and ferality, but looking at it, really thinking about it, it’s Jennings who is providing those scraps, these unverified claims and emotional appeals that he’s desperate for someone to bite into.
Labeling media outlets as "bottom-feeders," redefines the hierarchy of credibility. He clearly wants to frame the act of verification (which is the gold standard of journalism) as opportunism, but in any logical discourse, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
The quote is a defensive smokescreen. It’s the language of a person who has realized that their lie did not land, and rather than retracting the statement (which would be a sign of intellectual honesty) or providing proof (which they cannot do), they choose to attack the mechanism of accountability.
The statement is not an observation of media bias; it is a confession of fragility. It reveals that the speaker values the *perception* of truth over the *utility* of truth. To a logical observer, this sentence doesn't defend the speaker's claim—it serves as the evidence that the claim was false.
Well, he was, partially, but a partial cannot be the truth if 90% of it is a lie, and while Scott Jennings is many things (arrogant and stupid being most noticeable), first and foremost…he is a liar.
The core of this quote is a masterclass in semantic slippage. What Jennings is doing is trying, and failing, to pivot from a dereliction of evidence to a narrative of victimization.
The most damning element is the McConnell’s physical reality.
Circle back to the midway point of his quote where he, probably without even realizing it, doubled down on the same lies:
“He called me. We talked for nearly 20 minutes. We spoke again a few weeks later. I visited him in the hospital and then I saw him at his home just this past Saturday night. He was following the news. He wanted to discuss Iran, Russia, Ukraine, the Senate business, the politics of the day. I reported on CNN that he was recovering at home, that he wanted to return when the Senate reconvened, and that he remained especially interested in the Farm Bill, national defense, and America’s role in NATO.”
Jennings wants you to believe that in just a couple of months, Mitch McConnell went from sharp as a tack to…
Does he look alert, healthy, and cogent to you? Does he look like he could read you any of the 14 NATO articles, word-for-word? Or tell you what the Kremlin moving troops to the Polish border means for potential armed conflict?
The evidence (the wheelchair, the neurological damage) is a binary truth. You can’t claim to "personally know" someone is healthy when they’re rolled back into work in a goddamned wheelchair, confused as all shit, unable to walk, or talk, or speak coherently.
That’s not something I made up, Scott, that’s something all too unfamiliar to you…the truth.
But it did leave Jennings with two possible outcomes:
1. He was genuinely mistaken and chose to share his weird little fantasy (meaning he was lying from word one), or
2. He knew the truth and chose to share his weird little fantasy (which is still the definition of lying).
Now, he’s framing the disbelief as a decision made by bottom-feeding media because he wants people to think the critics are biased, while ignoring the fact that the critics' bias was just a rational response to a proven track record of being a fucking liar.
"They decided I must be lying." isn’t a defense, it’s gaslighting, end of story. It’s a pathetic prick trying to move the goalposts from "Is this statement true?" to "Why are these people being so mean to me?” because, like all Republicans, Jennings is a paper tiger, he shrugs his shoulders, he smirks at criticism, he chuckles off opposing viewpoints, he struts around like a pig who just won a blue ribbon at the county fair, but we all know the truth, he’s just another weepy-eyed, limp-wristed professional victim masquerading as a mustang.
He was, is, and always will be…a fat kid in the mirror.
We are Project Blackbird, and we are not for sale...