astounding.
Either your reading comprehension is wholly deficient, or you know full well what was said and meant, and you're just playing games. I lean towards the latter.
BTW, you don't have to like Trump nor like those comments to acknowledge what he said and dispute the prevarications spread through the press about what he said. I have a family member who loathes Trump, but after reading the actual text of what he said, acknowledged that the "spin" coming from the media of what was said and meant was false. I don't like the guy, either, but deliberately miscontruing what he said and then disseminating that misinformation isn't "okay."
Now, what I'd like to hear are hypothetical addenda or prefaces to Zucker's recorded remarks that would totally change any reasonable conclusions about what he and his organization are about. I'm all ears. Let's hear some hypotheticals that will, like, totally, like, expose that right-wing agitator who is obviously distorting the reality of the situation.
Which logical fallacy goes like this: "Evidence/Assertion A cannot be true because Person X offered it as evidence?" Or, more precisely, "I will disregard Evidence A because Person X offered it." Does that sound intelligent to you?