Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #51 

Trump declares victory over the "garbage journalism" at CNN


Charlie Spiering (Breitbart) is reporting that President Donald Trump described CNN as "garbage journalism" and "fake news" on Twitter, celebrating after the network experienced a difficult week.

"I am extremely pleased to see that CNN has finally been exposed as Fake News and garbage journalism," Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday. "It's about time!"

CNN fired three journalists after they published, retracted, and apologized for a Russia story after Breitbart News challenged the network's faulty reporting.

James O'Keefe's Project Veritas network released a series of embarrassing videos of network employees, calling into question their journalistic integrity.

Trump also disparaged CNN during a fundraiser for the Republican National Committee at his hotel in Washington, DC.

"These are really dishonest people. Should I sue them?" Trump said. "I mean, they're phonies. Jeff Zucker, I hear he's going to resign at some point pretty soon. I mean, these are horrible human beings."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #52 

Team Pence destructs false narrative of friction between presidential and vice presidential staffs


Michelle Moons (Breitbart) is reporting that in exclusive comments to Breitbart News on Saturday, the Press Secretary for the Vice President, Marc Lotter, pushed back against claims from six Republican "sources" that there is division between the Trump and Pence teams.

Lotter said the story line that the White House is in turmoil or that the Trump and Pence teams are divided is "the gold standard for fake news." He refuted outsiders' claims that there is any sort of division between staff members of the President and Vice President.

None of the six Republicans cited in a Saturday McClatchy DC article entitled "GOP's latest worry: White House turmoil dividing Trump, Pence staffs," were identified as having ever worked for the Trump Administration. The report states that four of six sources used had worked merely for the Trump-Pence campaign or transition. Two named sources have worked for establishment Republicans who favored Jeb Bush for President in 2016. Michael Steel worked for Bush's 2016 campaign directly.

Lotter told Breitbart News that what it comes down to is, "This is an entire story based off of speculation from people outside that have no idea what it's like being in there." The Trump and Pence teams are working in collaboration and communicating, according to Lotter.

"Our staffs are very close and we're continuing to get closer every day," he added. He confirmed that the two teams are working together to move the President's agenda forward.

One former Trump adviser cited in the McClatchy article, but unnamed, referred to "internet chatter" when claiming that this would "fuel animosity."

Former Jeb Bush for President Senior Advisor Michael Steel told McClatchy, "The administration doesn't know who to trust" and "When you're under attack the circle tightens." Steel also previously worked as Press Secretary for ousted House Speaker John Boehner.

Former senior staff member for then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor Doug Heye painted Pence as having to do "cleanup" when Trump "does something." In these comments to McClatchy he contended that such a situation "can be very frustrating for staff."

Boehner resigned from his position as Speaker of the House and left Congress altogether in 2015 after heavy calls for his ouster. Former Republican Leader Eric Cantor was primaried by Dave Brat in 2014. Jeb! Bush's 2016 presidential campaign failed to pick up steam and he left the race after poor results in the New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina, despite having raised in excess of $150 million for the campaign.

The article goes on to cite staff out of the White House and with the Vice President's office that say there aren't problems between the two teams, and those making claims of problems don't work inside the Administration.

McClatchy cited another unnamed "former adviser" professing to be in contact with Trump and Pence staff, who claimed that two mid-level Pence staffers "appeared delighted" that former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Jeff Sessions were testifying back-to-back before Congress.

Another source cited didn't actually claim tensions, but "if" they existed, it was likely related to "rumors" and "jockeying going on." The article goes on to speak of a glowing relationship between Trump and Pence themselves.

Lotter told Breitbart News on Saturday that reports that the Trump and Pence teams are not working well together are "simply not true." He addressed the sources cited in the story: "None of the sources are actually in the White House or in the Office of the Vice President. This is all based on outside people talking."

"Our staffs have never been closer," attested Lotter, who referred to communications, scheduling, top level staff of both the White House and Vice President's office who meet multiple times a day. "The staffs are getting closer if anything," he said. Lotter said his days typically begin and end meeting with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Asked about claims from one of the sources that the two teams are "walled off," Lotter replied to Breitbart News, "Nothing could be further from the truth."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #53 

The AP is engulfed in a CNN-Level scandal -- covers up their invention of an imaginary Pruitt meeting


Matthew Boyle (Breitbart) is reporting that the Associated Press is at it again -- pushing more fake news. Sadly, the once-great news wire service is trying to cover up its mistake -- nearly the exact mistake that cost three editorial staffers at CNN their jobs in a scandal that first exploded a week ago today.

A Breitbart News investigation has led to the correction by the Associated Press -- which originally resisted -- of the fake news it printed as deeper questions of responsibility, accountability, and journalistic ethics consume the AP heading into Fourth of July weekend.

This time, the Associated Press invented an imaginary meeting between EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, and then alleged that some kind of impropriety happened as a result.

This is exactly the same mistake CNN made a week ago, when it alleged that Anthony Scaramucci -- the founder of SkyBridge Capital and an associate and ally of President Donald Trump -- held "meetings" with Russian investment fund leaders and was under investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee and Treasury Department as a result.

A Breitbart News investigation uncovered that no such "meetings" took place, the Senate Intelligence Committee was not investigating the matter, and the Treasury Department had already -- at the urging of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to now Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin before Trump's inauguration -- looked into it and determined the matter to be entirely "without merit."

The very fake news scandal that is consuming CNN right now is the biggest scandal in the network's history, and comes as media D.C.-wide find themselves under intense scrutiny amid a litany of industry mistakes.

Breitbart News's investigation into CNN's very fake news piece forced the network to retract it and has led to the resignation of three top officials from inside CNN. Now that the Associated Press has made literally the exact same mistake with different actors and players -- alleging a meeting took place that never occurred, something that supposedly led to something untoward that also didn't happen -- the news wire service is not stepping up and holding its staff to the same level of accountability. The only difference between the CNN scandal and this AP scandal is that the AP did not also inaccurately allege the existence of non-existent Senate and Treasury investigations.

The Associated Press's top official in Washington -- D.C. bureau chief Julie Pace -- has not responded to an email requesting her comment and whether she believes in journalistic integrity. And AP spokeswoman Linda Easton is refusing to be transparent about what's shaping up to be yet another major media scandal after a week of failures throughout the fourth estate.

Under the headline "EPA chief met with Dow CEO before deciding on pesticide ban," the AP's Michael Biesecker alleged that some super-secret covert meeting occurred between Pruitt and Liveris -- and that awful things came as a result of that meeting. Biesecker wrote:

The Trump administration's top environmental official met privately with the chief executive of Dow Chemical shortly before reversing his agency's push to ban a widely used pesticide after health studies showed it can harm children's brains, according to records obtained by The Associated Press. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's schedule shows he met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9 for about a half hour at a Houston hotel. Both men were featured speakers at an energy industry conference. Twenty days later Pruitt announced his decision to deny a petition to ban Dow's chlorpyrifos pesticide from being sprayed on food, despite a review by his agency's scientists that concluded ingesting even minuscule amounts of the chemical can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants. EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said Tuesday that Pruitt was ‘briefly introduced' to Liveris at the conference.

The problem with Biesecker's piece, which ran over the Associated Press wires on Wednesday evening, is that as Breitbart News has confirmed from both sides: No meeting ever occurred, despite one appearing on Pruitt's schedule. Sure, both were at the conference and briefly shook hands when introduced, but they never had a "meeting" because of scheduling conflicts.

"Administrator Scott Pruitt did not meet privately with Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow," Liz Bowman, the EPA's spokeswoman, told Breitbart News. "The AP article is inaccurate and misleading. Despite multiple attempts to provide the Associated Press with the facts, this article has not been corrected."

Dow Chemical's director of public affairs also confirmed to Breitbart News that no such meeting ever occurred.

Rachelle Schikorra of Dow Chemical's public affairs department confirmed:

I can confirm that a meeting between Andrew Liveris and Scott Pruitt never happened. The two were attending the same conference where an introductory meet-and-greet was scheduled with no topics specified. However that meeting never happened due to schedule conflicts. The two have never had a meeting and have never discussed any Dow products.

The Associated Press originally refused to issue a correction on this despite knowing since at least Thursday, as Breitbart News can confirm -- the article ran on Wednesday -- that the piece was inaccurate. The AP has caved and finally corrected the inaccurate hit piece on Pruitt. What's more, the Associated Press is now -- while under scrutiny thanks to a Breitbart News investigation -- trying to cover up the mistake and not answer questions about the editors and others involved in the grave error, or whether they and the reporter responsible for it will be held accountable.

The AP refused to do anything about its inaccurate reporting for two days, after the original piece was printed Wednesday. Now, Friday evening, the AP is admitting its original piece was wrong by running a new piece that completely undercuts the old one. And, finally, hours later after originally refusing to do it even on Friday evening, the wire service has issued a correction on the old piece.

The new Associated Press piece, which ran without a byline late Friday reads:

The Environmental Protection Agency and Dow Chemical said Friday that a planned meeting in March between EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the company's CEO never took place. The meeting was listed on Pruitt's schedule and reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday. EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in a statement that Pruitt and Dow's Andrew Liveris did have ‘a brief introduction in passing' during an energy conference in Houston. She said ‘no substantive issues' were discussed. Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow, said the formal meeting ‘never happened due to schedule conflicts.'

Easton, AP's spokeswoman, has not answered substantive questions about this new scandal engulfing the Associated Press. Easton originally refused to answer whether the AP was going to actually correct, update, or retract the old piece that is demonstrably inaccurate based on the AP's own new reporting or whether the reporters and editors involved in the matter will resign or be terminated, as happened at CNN.

But now the AP has corrected it. They said in the correction sent out over the AP wires late Friday night:

In a story June 27, The Associated Press, relying on schedules provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, reported erroneously that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris for about a half-hour at a Houston hotel. A spokeswoman for the EPA says the meeting listed on the schedule was canceled, though Pruitt and Liveris did have a ‘brief introduction in passing.'

When originally contacted about the fake news Biesecker printed on Wednesday, Easton only told Breitbart News on Friday afternoon that she planned to respond later.

"Thank you for your email. I will get back to you," Easton said mid-Friday afternoon, just after 4:00 p.m. ET.

Later, Easton said that the AP would be printing a new article. "We will have a new story on the wire shortly," she said at 5:16 p.m., adding in a follow-up email at 5:58 p.m. ET: "It should be on the wire momentarily."

Then, when the new wire that undercut the old one was published, Easton sent a link with this text at 6:11 p.m. ET: "The story is available here."

For hours, until after 8:00 p.m. ET on Friday, Easton continued refusing to answer whether the AP would be issuing a correction on its clearly inaccurate piece.

She has refused to answer any more questions about this matter, including which AP editors were responsible for this, why this correction took so long, and whether there will be any consequences for those responsible for this grave error.

Easton similarly originally resisted transparency a month ago before the AP terminated New Hampshire-based freelancer Melanie Plenda after a Breitbart News investigation over the course of several pieces discovered she violated AP standards for journalistic integrity.

Plenda snuck into a GOP fundraiser in New Hampshire that featured White House counselor KellyAnne Conway, and then she misreported what Conway said as well as the size and reaction of the crowd. The event was closed to the press, and Plenda -- as Breitbart News reported -- misrepresented herself to get inside. The Associated Press editor who asked her to go was aware of the fact, as a voicemail by Breitbart News showed, as the event was closed press.

It also came out over the course of the investigation into the Melanie Plenda scandal that she was not truly a journalist but had pledged allegiance via social media to the anti-Trump resistance in the days after the election, a violation of AP standards. Eventually, though, the AP corrected the inaccuracies in the Plenda story and terminated her.

This latest development in a series of media-wide scandals comes after three senior editorial officials at CNN -- a reporter, an editor, and the chief of CNN's investigative unit -- were forced to resign after a Breitbart News investigation uncovered a now-retracted very fake news hit piece they did on President Donald Trump and his associates.

The scandal has sparked an internal investigation at CNN, which is ongoing and being led by CNN president Jeff Zucker. All of that comes as videos released by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas throughout the course of this week have uncovered two separate CNN producers and a major leftist personality on the network's payroll making seriously untoward remarks on hidden camera.

One, a CNN health producer based in Atlanta, said that the network -- at Zucker's direction -- regularly ignores newsworthy stories to shift coverage back to the question of Russian interference in the U.S. election and whether there was collusion with the Trump campaign.

That producer, John Bonifield, has CNN's full support for now, while he also finds himself as a co-defendant in a defamation lawsuit being brought against him and the network by a Florida hospital, despite his saying on camera that he knows there is no evidence to back up the charges on the Russia scandal against Trump but that CNN pushes the story anyway for ratings.

Van Jones, a former Obama administration official who now works at CNN, said on another hidden camera video that the Russia scandal is a "nothing burger" despite CNN's breathless coverage of it. A third video from O'Keefe's team, which dropped on Friday morning, showed CNN New Day producer Jimmy Carr attacking the appearance of White House counselor KellyAnne Conway, as well as viciously criticizing the intelligence of the American electorate and calling President Trump "crazy" -- a viewpoint he said is shared by the vast majority of those inside his network.

CNN is refusing to answer questions about these matters, either the O'Keefe videos or the deeper scandal that saw the head of its investigative unit and two others step down. Its public relations team is not commenting on record to any news outlets, or answering detailed questions about it.

Network president Jeff Zucker ducked a camera when O'Keefe attempted to ask him questions about the scandal this week, and he has refused Breitbart News interview requests and declined to appear in front of television cameras to do an on-camera briefing about what happened.

Media-wide, not just at CNN, there has been a breakdown in credibility. The New York Times is getting sued by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, for inaccurately alleging in an editorial that she was responsible for motivating the shooter of Rep. Gabby Lee Giffords (D-AZ) in Arizona several years ago.

Palin's lawyers are Hulk Hogan's old attorneys, who successfully sued Gawker into non-existence. The lawsuit literally cites the New York Times' previous reporting to debunk the Times own piece, which has since been corrected. Meanwhile, New York Times editors this week led a protest outside their headquarters in Manhattan as mass layoffs loom for a publication President Trump has called "failing."

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, new editorial standards uncovered by Washingtonian magazine literally make it a fireable offense for staff to on social media to criticize the Post's business parters and advertisers. That means journalists there can be fired if they speak out on social media in a manner the business side does not like about Jeff Bezos, Amazon, Whole Foods, other Bezos properties, or against advertisers.

In other words, advertisers to the Washington Post and business allies of Bezos can expect a modicum of protection from news media scrutiny if they pay up to Bezos's empire. And of course, as Greta Van Susteren is no longer hosting her MSNBC show, her now former MSNBC colleagues Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are in a tit-for-tat feud with the President of the United States over their love affair and Brzezinski's supposed bloody face-lift.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #54 

Defiant CNN touts discredited dossier in one-hour Russia conspiracy special


Aaron Klein (Breitbart) is reporting that amid a public relations crisis concerning the network's Russia coverage, CNN on Tuesday night aired a one-hour special documentary on allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

One section of the special, titled, "The Russian Connection: Inside the Attack on Democracy," reported on questions raised in the 35-page, largely discredited dossier on President Donald Trump.

The dossier in question was authored by former intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who was reportedly paid by Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans to investigate Trump. Last month, Steele conceded in court documents that part of his work still needed to be verified.

"The Russian Connection" special was hosted by Jim Sciutto, CNN's chief national security correspondent, and included interviews with former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former national security adviser Tom Donilon and former CIA Moscow Station Chief Steven Hall. It aired Tuesday night at 10 p.m. ET.

The program began by focusing on cyberattacks that hit Estonia in 2007 and were widely blamed on Moscow. It heavily featured hacks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Podesta's Gmail account, which the show blamed on Russia.

And the series raised questions about the possibility of collusion between Russia and members of Trump's presidential campaign despite there being no known evidence of any such collusion.

The last section of the CNN special touted the controversial dossier.

"Next, was President Trump also in Russia's crosshairs? The emergence of a mysterious dossier," the narrator ominously states.

Sciutto tells the audience: "Another continuing question for investigators -- does Russia hold information that could be damaging to Donald Trump if made public. The collection of such compromising material, 'kompromat' in Russian, is standard operating procedure for Russian spy services."

The dossier contains wild and unproven claims that the Russians had information regarding Trump and sordid sexual acts, including the widely mocked claim that Trump hired prostitutes and had them urinate on a hotel room bed.

The special then cuts to a CNN video report about information contained in the dossier. In the video report, Sciutto tells viewers that "Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump."

Sciutto continues:

The nation's senior-most intelligence officials took the possibility of potentially compromising information seriously enough to brief both then-President elect Donald Trump and then-President Obama on the existence of a bossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent and funded by Trump's political opponents.

News first reported by CNN. In conversations described in the dossier, Russian officials and others claimed to have personally and financially compromising information on Trump.

Indeed, CNN was first to report in January that a two-page synopsis of the claims made inside the dossier were presented to both Trump and President Obama during briefings about alleged Russian interference in the election. Leaks about those dossier briefings served as the basis for numerous news media allegations about Russia and Trump.

In the CNN special, Sciutto asked Clapper, "Can you tell us your thinking as to why you included a summary on the now famous dossier and the briefings to the president-elect and the president?"

"Well, we thought that it was important that he know about it. That was the main point. Not to comment on the veracity," Clapper replied.

Major questions have been raised as to the veracity of the dossier, large sections of which have been discredited.

Citing a "Kremlin insider," the dossier, which misspelled the name of a Russian diplomat, claimed that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen held "secret meetings" with Kremlin officials in Prague in August 2016.

That charge unraveled after Cohen revealed he had never traveled to Prague, calling the story "totally fake, totally inaccurate." The Atlantic confirmed Cohen's whereabouts in New York and California during the period the dossier claimed that Cohen was in Prague. Cohen reportedly produced his passport showing he had not traveled to Prague.

Citing current and former government officials, the New Yorker reported the dossier prompted skepticism among intelligence community members, with the publication quoting one member as saying it was a "nutty" piece of evidence to submit to a U.S. president.

Steele's work has been questioned by former acting CIA director Morell, who currently works at the Hillary Clinton-tied Beacon Global Strategies LLC.  

According to the BBC, the dossier served as a "roadmap" for the FBI's investigation into claims of coordination between Moscow and members of Trump's presidential campaign.

In April, CNN reported that the dossier served as part of the FBI's justification for seeking the FISA court's reported approval to clandestinely monitor the communications of Carter Page, the American oil industry consultant who was tangentially and briefly associated with Trump's presidential campaign.

Senior Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have reportedly requested that the FBI and Department of Justice turn over applications for any warrants to monitor the communications of U.S. citizens associated with the investigation into alleged Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election.

In testimony last month, Comey repeatedly refused to answer questions about his agency's ties to the dossier.

In testimony earlier this month to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, former FBI Director James B. Comey admitted that he pushed back against a request from President Donald Trump to possibly investigate the origins of "salacious material" that the agency possessed in the course of its investigation into alleged Russian interference.

The "salacious material" is clearly a reference to the dossier, as Breitbart News reported.

Author and journalist Paul Sperry reported in the New York Post last week that the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena Fusion GPS, the secretive firm that hired Steele to produce the dossier, because the firm reportedly refused to answer questions about who financed the dossier.

Sperry raised further questions regarding possible connections between Fusion GPS and Hillary Clinton:

Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democratic ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.

Moreover, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.

In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign.

CNN under fire

CNN, meanwhile, has been under fire since last week, after the network retracted a story that relied on one anonymous source to allege ties between a Trump ally and a Russian investment bank.  Three CNN staffers reportedly resigned in the wake of the scandal.  The network abruptly deleted and then retracted the story after the narrative was questioned by Breitbart's Matt Boyle.

CNN faced more controversy after Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe released a video in which the network's supervising producer, John Bonifield, who works for the medical and health section, referred to the Russia interference story as "mostly bullshit" while indicating the story was being pumped for ratings.

"I just feel like they don't really have it, but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me," Bonifield was filmed stating. "You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof."

O'Keefe followed that up with a second video on Wednesday in which CNN commentator Van Jones called the Russia collusion story a "big nothing burger."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #55 

James O'Keefe strikes again! -- CNN producer says American "voters are stupid as shit"

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Project Veritas dropped a 3rd bombshell undercover video of CNN early Friday morning as part of a series dubbed "American Pravda."

In this video, CNN associate producer, Jimmy Carr trashes American voters by calling them "stupid as shit." He also trashed Kellyanne Conway saying that "she looks like she got hit with a shovel."

The first video released by Project Veritas late Monday night shows CNN Producer John Bonifield admitting the Trump-Russia story is B.S. but they continue to push the false narrative for "ratings."

Bonifield went on to say that the CEO of CNN, Jeff Zucker demanded that his news channel get back to the Russia story that is a ratings winner for CNN.

Bonifield laughed off the notion that the media has an ethical responsibility and said "it's a business" and "they gotta do what they gotta do to make money."/p>

The second video was released by Project Veritas on Wednesday. It shows one of CNN's most prominent left-leaning political commentators, the self described "communist and rowdy black activist," Van Jones admitting that the Russia story is a "Nothing Burger."

Please notice that not a single #FakeNews outlet criticized this CNN producer for saying that Kellyanne Conway "looks like she got hit with a shovel."

The Left can say anything. The Trump people can't say anything.

Them's the Rules from the Left.

Note: O'Keefe is threatening to drop a bombshell video tomorrow AM.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #56 

Mika Brzezinski referred to President Trump as "narcissist, ignorant, stupid and mentally ill

Joe Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Mika Brzezinski, and her husband to be Joe Scarborough, constantly berate the current President Donald Trump every day on MSNBC's terribly unpopular "Morning Joe" show. Their disregard and disrespect for the president is consistent with other liberal main stream media outlets because the president is a Republican.

Earlier this month Mika went on an all out assault on the US President. In less than one minute she called President Trump: "Narcissist," "Mentally Ill', "Not Well," "Ignorant," "Stupid," "says he can grab women anywhere" and insinuates that he might have homosexual tendencies.

President Trump apparently had enough yesterday as he tweeted the following in two tweets on Twitter:


The President's second tweet said the following:


Many on the Left and some top Republicans thought the President was out of line.

President Trump obviously felt that Mika was out of line and he let her have it.

When this President swings he knocks people out.

Let's understand one simple fact. If President Donald trump cured cancer, the #FakeNews media would relentlessly attack him for meddling in medicine.

And I have one question for the Republican's who call for Trump to quit his tweeting.

Do you think that will stop the #FakeNews media from crudely attacking Trump?

I know. It's a stupid question.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #57 

VICE News retracts two more Trump #FakeNews stories

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says this is becoming quite a trend.  

Following the heels of CNN News retractions, firings and internal investigations launched as a result of false and inflammatory journalism, VICE News is now completely retracting two separate President Trump stories and also launching an internal investigation.


Tough week for the #FakeNews media

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #58 

Political humorist Mark Steyn on the current state of CNN's planetary conspiracy theorem

Mark Steyn accurately provides numerous metaphors to encapsulate the latest Russian meme du jour -- from empty potato chip bags to Sean Spicer's interpretive dance routine while CNN's Jim Acosta interviews Comrade Elmo.

Good Stuff. A little long but very interesting -- and funny.

When they start laughing at Anderson Cooper -- Gloria Vanderbilt's little boy and CNN's superstar -- you know it's all over.

Laughter stings.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #59 

Sharyl Attkisson says "well-funded actors" manipulate news and the way we think


Fox News Insider is reporting that investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson slammed what she called "transactional journalism," calling it "wholly inappropriate."

"Transactional journalism" refers to inappropriate dealings behind the scenes some journalists have with political actors, the television host and author of the new book "The Smear" said.

"Virtually every image you run across, whether it is in the news or on social media or elsewhere, even on comedy shows is being put there, [the players I interviewed in the "smear universe"] say, for a purpose by somebody who wants you to think something that may not necessarily be a consensus at all, or may not even be true," Attkisson told host Shannon Bream.

"Well-funded actors" with "fake accounts" on social media and "a ton of money" use them to manipulate how we think, Attkisson said.

Attkinson offered some advice for anyone reading the news: "Trust your cognitive dissonance" when you see a story telling you everyone thinks a certain way.

News reporters are supposed to be the ones sorting through the mess of information so the public knows what to believe, Attkinson said. Instead, the news these days has "so many serious mistakes, even by formerly well-respected news outlets." People should do their own research to find out what is true, she advised.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #60 

Newt Gingrich says CNN should bring in independent counsel to investigate fake news scandal


Ben Kew (Breitbart) is reporting that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said on Tuesday that CNN should consider bringing in an independent counsel to investigate the company as a whole amid a fake news scandal in which they retracted a hit piece pertaining to President Donald Trump.

"They should appoint an outside analyst, somebody of impeccable authority like Michael Mukasey, who used to be Attorney General of the United States, to view everything of CNN and basically reset it," he told Fox and Friends in an interview. Gingrich continued:

You cannot get to a believable network while Zucker is there. He clearly made a gamble last year to be the leading anti-Trump network, he"s clearly done things that are absurdly wrong. I like lots of the people at CNN, I worked with them for a while. There are some very very good people at CNN, they have a very long tradition of being good journalists. But the culture of the overall system right now is very toxic.

Gingrich"s comments come after the network retracted a story alleging links between former Trump transition team member Anthony Scaramucci and the Russian Direct Investment Fund -- an incident that has since led to the resignation of three CNN employees.

Furthermore, footage obtained by investigative journalist James O"Keefe"s Project Veritas showed a senior CNN producer admitting that the network"s relentless coverage of President Donald Trump over alleged links to Russia was "mostly bullsh*t."

On Tuesday, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders described the network as "a disgrace to journalism."

Responding to the crisis at the network, Donald Trump wrote on Twitter: "Fake News CNN is looking at big management changes now that they got caught falsely pushing their phony Russian stories.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #61 

How CNN's #FakeNews machine ran


Daniel Greenfield (FrontPage) says in April, media types were crowing that CNN had brought in Eric Lichtblau who had been, in the Washington Post's words, at "the forefront of the New York Times's reporting on the relationship between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia." It was "an investment in investigative reporting and the sprawling Russia story." It didn't take long for the investigative investment to sprawl badly.

Lichtblau has resigned from CNN in a growing scandal over a #FakeNews story about a Trump associate.

"Eric will guide our coverage and thinking," Lex Haris, executive editor of CNN Investigates, had boasted. "And when he's onto a investigation, he'll still be reporting and writing too."

Not for long -- Haris has joined Lichtblau on the unemployment line after the #FakeNews scandal.

CNN Investigates had been announced after President Trump's inauguration. Its hit pieces had followed the same pattern as the Scaramucci attack that would be its undoing. Go after a personality tipped for a job with the new administration. CNN Investigates had previously targeted Monica Crowley and Sheriff Clarke with plagiarism accusations. But this time around, CNN's anti-Trump unit had made a big mistake.

Unlike K-File's petty harassment of Trump associates, the Scaramucci hit piece came from the heavier hitters poached by CNN from mainstream media papers who were supposed to bring down Trump.

The men behind the disaster were no lightweights. Thomas Frank had been nominated for a Pulitzer. Eric Lichtblau had shared a Pulitzer for bashing the Bush administration over, of all things, surveillance. Their names were all over CNN hit pieces tying to tie Trump to an impeachable Russian scandal.

That was what they had been hired for.

CNN claimed that Lichtblau had been "reporting on Comey for more than a decade." And Frank was busy rolling out fresh grist for the Trump-Russia mill. One Frank article on CNN breathlessly claimed, "One week, three more Trump-Russia connections." CNN was riding the impeachment train to Moscow.

And yet Lichtblau's tenure at CNN quickly became troubled. An early June piece denied that Comey had told President Trump that he was not under investigation. 

"Comey expected to refute Trump," was the headline. The headline didn't hold up. An awkward correction was appended conceding that its premise had been discredited by Comey's testimony.

The sources were, as usual, anonymous. The Fake News story was full of "a source tells CNN" and "another source said" attributions. Seventeen of them.

The hodgepodge of anonymous sources read like a bizarre fairy tale or mystery novel.

 Was "the source said" the first anonymous source? Was "a source adds" the second anonymous source? Or a third anonymous source? Was "a source" the same as "one source" who claimed to be "familiar" with Comey's thinking?

"This source" seemed to be different than "one source." But what about "another source"? And the "sources"?

This wasn't journalism, it was gibberish. But building news stories out of conspiratorial insider fairy tales like these had become routine at the big city papers of record. The New York Times got its readership boom with anonymously sourced conspiracy theories just like these. CNN knew what it was getting when it lured Lichtblau in. It wasn't looking for journalism, but breaking fake news scandal theater.

It was riding the same boom as the Washington Post and the New York Times. As CNN supervising producer John Bonifield admitted in a Project Veritas video, it was about the ratings.

"It's mostly bullshit right now," he conceded.  

"Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords," Bonifield said. "And the CEO of CNN said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we're done with that, let's get back to Russia."

Why Russia? It was a popular conspiracy theory. CNN, like its dead tree competitors, was exploiting the paranoia and anger of the left for big ratings and profits. But it also carried more risk. The Times and the Post had crossed the twilight zone into publishing anonymously sourced conspiracy theories. It had become sufficient to build a link connecting a few people or organizations in the loosest and most casual way possible and then pad that out with anonymously sourced insider gossip about an investigation.

The anonymously sourced insider gossip was the only difference between many of these conspiracy theories at the Times and the Post and any random fringe ravings on leftist blogs. That and the credibility of its authors who could boast a Pulitzer and insider connections that just had to be real.

That was the business that CNN had gotten into with its "investment in investigative reporting and the sprawling Russia story."

The end came with yet another anonymously sourced gossip hit piece trying to link Anthony Scaramucci, a Trump adviser, with the Russia investigation. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation referenced in the piece turned out not to exist. CNN's legal people never cleared the piece. Heads rolled.

The heads included Eric Lichtblau's noggin, as well as Thomas Frank's dome and Haris' noodle. 

Russia stories will now receive extra scrutiny at CNN. Why Russia, rather than Trump? Because CNN has accurately identified Russia as a major failure point in the reporting. Most in the media know very little about Russia. And the reporting isn't being done by former bureau chiefs in Moscow, but by the usual media types who get their insight from search engines and insider gossip. Loose connections are drawn and then transformed into major stories based on a casual meeting between someone who knows Trump and someone who knows Putin. There's an endless appetite for such stories on the left, not because of their content, but because they reaffirm the left's conviction in Trump's downfall.

No one actually reads through the latest story about how a guy who once shook hands with Trump might have run into a Russian who was once photographed with Vladimir Putin and is now being investigated by the Senate double secret probation committee meeting in someone's imagination. 

They just share it on social media. That's why the viral hit pieces are popular and profitable.

It's how the New York Times and the Washington Post found themselves in the black. And why CNN is suddenly in big trouble. The dirty business of conspiracy theories is a dangerous one. It depends on walking a fine line by implying things without saying them out loud or actually stating falsifiable facts. 

That's why Comey madness was so useful. But there was only so much mileage that could be gotten out of him. And as the media turned back to splicing together conspiracies about real people, the bell rang.

CNN's hit team had made their big mistake with Scaramucci. After all the money spent on buying BuzzFeed's pranksters and big city paper hitmen like Lichtblau, Trump is the one claiming the scalps.

Conspiracy theories die hard. Fake news is very profitable. But what happened at CNN should be a lesson to the rest of the industry eager to cash in on the irrational fear and loathing of the Left.

A few months after the Post's Eric Wemple had touted CNN's hire of Lichtblau, he was forced to report on his resignation. CNN has taken a beating. The two titans of anonymously sourced Trump hit pieces, the New York Times and the Washington Post, are next.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #62 

CNN producer admits Russia story is "bullshit" -- manufactured for ratings


Sundance (ConsrvativeTreehouse) is reporting that Project Veritas and James O'Keefe have produced another explosive undercover story showcasing CNN producers who admit the Trump-Russia story is manufactured and promoted for ratings by the network.

The hidden-camera video is of CNN producer John Bonifield admitting that there is no proof to CNN's Russia narrative.

Bonifield says:

"I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any giant proof."

He confirms that the driving factor at CNN is ratings:

"It's a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss… All the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you're just like, that's adorable. That's adorable. This is a business."

According to the CNN Producer, business is booming:

"Trump is good for business right now."

Bonifield further goes on to explain that the instructions come straight from the top, citing the CEO, Jeff Zucker:

"Just to give you some context, President Trump pulled out of the climate accords and for a day and a half we covered the climate accords. And the CEO of CNN (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we're done with that, let's get back to Russia."

Bonifield also acknowledged:

"I haven't seen any good enough evidence to show that the president committed a crime."

"I just feel like they don't really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun, you have no real proof."

James O'Keefe concludes:

"To report not on facts, but instead on narratives that yield high ratings, is exactly the definition of fake news."

"We said we are going after the media, and there is a lot more to come."


Related:  Three CNN "journalists" resign over retracted story targeting Trump ally, Anthony Scaramucci

Jeff Zucker is destroying CNN with his ideological leadership.

He says, "those who rely on CNN trust CNN more than ever” as CNN's viewership crumbles.

The problem with Zucker's statement is that he overlooks the fact that "those who rely on CNN" -- the leading cable news provider for years and years -- are fewer and fewer.

The only remaining CNN viewers are the lunatic anti-Trumpers that embrace CNN's propaganda and #FakeNews.

Fox News is burying CNN during the dinner hour and during prime time even MSNBC beats CNN, while Fox News equals or beats the two of them combined:


Anderson Cooper, once CNN's star, is dying and the reason for that is his beating of that very dead horse, "Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia!"

Night after night, Cooper and company discuss "Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia!" over, and over, and over, and over . . .

It's too much even for the most die-hard anti-Trumper.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #63 

Proof the liberal media is lying about Islamic refugee terror attacks

Truth Feed News wants to know how many times you have heard the liberal media try to tell you that there haven't been any terrorist attacks by refugees post 9/11?

And how many times have you heard the media try to tell you that there haven't been any terrorist attacks by anyone from the countries on Trump's travel ban?

This video shows very clearly why these two statements are false.

Let's hope the Supreme Court passes the travel ban sooner rather than later.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #64 

MSNBC mentions "Russia" 56 times in just one hour

Truth Feed News is reporting that the mainstream liberal media "news" coverage on MSNBC and CNN has become a complete joke.

Gone is any journalistic responsibility to cover the most important events of the day.

Gone is any objectivity.

What instead you now get, is a bunch of pathetic sore losers who in their hatred of Trump are obsessed with promoting a laughably stupid conspiracy theory that Russia is the sole source of everything wrong in the world and the fall of the left.

This viral video shows how ridiculous this line of leftist propaganda is.

In a single hour, MSNBC mentioned Russia 56 times, almost once per minute.

The Democrat- media coalition  are a one trick pony, and "blame Russia" seems to be all they have.

No wonder they keep losing over and over again.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #65 

CNN is imposing new rules on Russia coverage


Pacific Pundit says I just can't stop laughing!

After the latest fake news Russia story was pulled from the CNN website this past week, CNN is apparently about to impose "new rules" on their not only biased, but fake Russia stories.

Higher-ups at CNN are cracking down after another botched story regarding President Trump and Russia.

The network retracted and deleted a story late last week that claimed Anthony Scaramucci, who served on Trump's transition team, was under FBI investigation for a meeting he had with a Russian executive. That story, which was based on one unnamed congressional source, was false.

CNNMoney executive editor Rich Barbieri said in an email obtained by BuzzFeed:


The "Jason" referred to in the email is a vice president at CNN, according to BuzzFeed.

CNN has had an oftentimes adversarial relationship with the Trump administration and the president has taken to referring to the network as #fakenews.

Trump has even referred to CNN as "very fake news" when hectored by CNN's Jim Acosta.

With CNN beginning an investigation into their own fake news epidemic, it’s almost like the bank fraudster (Bernie Sanders) investigating bank fraud.

The "very fake news" scandal that is engulfing CNN inside and outside the left-wing network now reaches to its highest levels as even CNN president Jeff Zucker is personally involved in the internal investigation into a now-retracted hit piece, sources inside CNN with direct knowledge confirmed to Breitbart News.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats find themselves on the hot seat as insiders point to leftist staff for members like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) as being responsible for the thinly-sourced hit piece. Staff for Harris deny any involvement, but Warren staff have not responded.

These new revelations come on the heels of a BuzzFeed News report citing internal sources at CNN calling the decision to print the "very fake news" hit piece on President Donald Trump and his associates that inaccurately alleged they were under Senate and Treasury investigation -- a piece a Breitbart News investigation forced CNN to retract -- a "massive, massive screw-up."

BuzzFeed's Jon Passantino reported that CNN sources told him that Zucker is "directly involved" in the matter now, as is the head of HR at CNN, and that "people will be disciplined."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #66 

An epidemic of lawlessness


Scott Johnson (PowerLine) says yesterday's Washington Post carried the Russia story of the day.

Post reporters Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous purport to deliver the goods on "Obama's secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin's election assault." It's a long, long story that is of interest from a variety of perspectives.

The Post purports to give us the inside story on the collection of intelligence on Russian interference in the presidential election and serve up the apologetics explaining the Obama administration's passive response. Based on highly classified intelligence related to the Post, the CIA discovered Russian interference in the election while it was in process within months of the election in the last year of the Obama administration. According to the CIA intelligence, the interference came on the order of Vladimir Putin and furthered Putin's desire to aid the election of Donald Trump as president.

The Post dates the critical intelligence "bombshell" obtained by the CIA to August 2016. The Post reports that CIA Director John Brennan deemed it so confidential that he withheld it from the President's Daily Brief and conveyed it directly in writing to Obama by hand delivery.

The intelligence provided Obama administration officials time to foil Putin's plans and/or punish Putin's deeds. Indeed, administration officials concocted plans to punish and deter Russia from interference. The Post reports that "Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could 'crater' the Russian economy. But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package." In other words, Barack Obama declined to take any action while it might still have done some good in 2016.

One might infer from story that Obama "colluded" with Putin to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. One might support the inference with Obama's own comment open mic comment to Dmitri Medvedev that during Obama's second term he would have more "flexibility" to cooperate with Putin.

To be fair, we might consider the explanation that Obama was just a pusillanimous pussy disinclined to protect the interests of the United States from our enemies. Perhaps Obama's passivity was overdetermined and other hypothetical explanations apply. Certainly some explanation beyond any offered by the Post's sources is called for. The possibilities are endless.

By contrast, however, the Post's reportage offers no evidence of Trump's "collusion" with the Russian interference intended to assist Trump's election. Zero. Nada. Not even by inference.

Perhaps evidence of Trump "collusion" with Russia is beyond the scope of the Post's story. If the Post had obtained such evidence from its numerous sources, however, it would certainly have found a place for it in the story.

So far as I can tell, sophisticated commenters on the story take it at face value and consider it on the terms presented by the Post. See, for example, David French's NRO column and Tom Rogan's Examiner column.

The story comes complete with this revelation: "Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia's infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability."

I'm sure Putin is grateful for the heads-up from the Post. You don't have to be a CIA officer or analyst to figure that out.

Now like much of the Post story, this is a piece of highly classified intelligence whose disclosure violates the oaths of those who gave it to the Post. The violation of a solemn oath by a witness is commonly taken to detract from the credibility of the witness's testimony. Consider, moreover, that the sources for the story were not under oath when they confided in Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima and Adam Entous. The intelligent reader would be well within his rights not to believe a word they say.

If we believe it, however, this pertinent fact should be added. The disclosure of highly classified intelligence by government officials also violates the espionage laws of the United States. It is in all likelihood felonious several times over in the case of each of the Post's numerous anonymous sources.

The Post and its reporters are accomplices to the crimes committed by their sources. They have disseminated highly classified intelligence to the enemies of the United States -- as the left has lately discovered Putin and Russia to be.

Taking the story at face value, we can conclude that the Post and its sources have done great damage to the national security of the United States. The Post attributes the leaks on which the story is based to "three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity…" As for the requirement of anonymity imposed by the Post's sources, see the paragraph above.

Again, taken at face value, the story buries this bombshell. Three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior government positions have undertaken a campaign of gross lawlessness for their own purposes undermining the national security of the United States beyond anything Vladimir Putin can do.

UPDATE: A reader points out that NBC reported the preparation of the United States for a cyberattack on Russia in November 2016 "according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #67 

CNN publishes false report -- then deletes and retracts its bullsh!t story linking Trump and Russia

Rob Tornoe ( is reporting that On Thursday evening, CNN investigative reporter Thomas Frank published a potentially explosive reportinvolving an investigation of a Russian investment fund with potential ties to several associates of President Donald Trump.

But by Friday night, the story was removed from CNN's website and all links were scrubbed from the network's social media accounts.

"That story did not meet CNN's editorial standards and has been retracted," CNN said in an editors note posted in place of the story. "Links to the story have been disabled."


Neither Frank or CNN immediately responded to requests for comment, and a spokesperson for the Senate Intelligence Committee wasn't available to comment.

Frank, a Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist, had reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee was investigating a "$10-billion Russian investment fund whose chief executive met with a member of President Donald Trump's transition team four days before Trump's inauguration."

In addition to retracting its story, CNN also apologized to Anthony Scaramucci, an adviser to Trump during the presidential campaign and a member of his transition team's executive committee, who was mentioned in the story as having met Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) that the network said is overseen by Vnesheconombank, a state-run bank that is currently under U.S. sanctions.

According to the report,  the meeting between Scarmucci and Dmitriev could have included the issue of sanctions being lifted, but a spokesperson for the RDIF told Sputnik News, a state-run Russian news channel, that the fund is not a part of Vnesheconombank.

"RDIF always operates in full compliance with relevant regulations and legislation and its operations do not violate sanctions," the spokesperson said.

Multiple news outlets have reported on the meeting, which took place at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland just four days before Trump's inauguration. As Bloomberg noted, it was "the first public contact between the incoming administration and Kremlin-backed business."

Scaramucci weighed in on Twitter Saturday morning about the network's decision to pull the story, calling it a "classy move."

What's "classy" about publishing lies based on a "could have?"

Watch CNN's reports sometime. They're loaded with "ifs," "could haves," and "would haves," all sourced to "anonymous sources."

Never forget CNN's greatest #FakeNews triumph -- "hands up, don't shoot!"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #68 

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz accidentally proves WaPo Russian conspiracy article is baseless

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that when people react to questions from a perspective of individual self-preservation they tend to forget their professional obligation to the bigger institutional picture.

Reference Evelyn Farkas on MSNBC for one very visible and specific recent example.

Today we have another unintentional admission thanks to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and CNN.

Currently, the DNC and left-wing media apparatus writ large, are trying desperately to regain footing on the "vast Russian conspiracy narrative," as specifically evidenced by the Washington Post article published early on Friday.

Included within the exhaustive Post article, and specifically as foundational evidence to support the overall conspiracy, the Washington Post highlights Russian "hacking" of the DNC servers.  Here's an excerpt:

(WaPo) […] Meanwhile, the FBI was tracking a flurry of hacking activity against U.S. political parties, think tanks and other targets. Russia had gained entry to DNC systems in the summer of 2015 and spring of 2016, but the breaches did not become public until they were disclosed in a June 2016 report by The Post. (link)

However, almost simultaneously, in another media format, former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, was being questioned about this very issue in the context of former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson's recent congressional testimony.

What happens next is almost too funny for words. (see video below)

While attempting to defend her professional qualifications from the accusations of ineptitude, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz ends up calling Jeh Johnson a liar and simultaneously destroys the credibility of the Washington Post article.

Seriously.  Watch:

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #69 

Breitbart and censored Ann Coulter to cover up anti-Trump hate crimes

Charles C. Johnson (GotNews) is reporting that Breitbart News and Town Hall censored an Ann Coulter column on Wednesday to help the mainstream media cover up 200 hate crimes committed against supporters of President Donald J. Trump, as documented by American Renaissance.

Coulter's Wednesday column -- entitled "The Left Has One More Argument: Kill Them All!" -- which The Daily Caller published in full, assails the mainstream media for neglecting to mention politically-motivated acts of violence against Trump supporters.

Breitbart News and Town Hall ran the same, censored version of the Coulter column without the link to American Renaissance's anti-Trump hate map.


Read The Daily Caller's truthful version of the Coulter article that doesn't kowtow to leftist enemies:

In the past year, there have been at least a hundred physical attacks on Trump supporters or presumed Trump supporters. The mainstream media have ignored them all. (You can click the Anti-Trump Hate Map to see some of them here.)

Stay tuned for more.

Alex Marlow is the editor-in-chief of Breitbart News. Katie Pavlich is the editor of Town Hall. Let them know what you think about politically-correct censorship.

This is not the first time Marlow demanded authors strip an article of any reference to American Renaissance. When Bill Kristol told an American Enterprise Institute audience that "lazy, spoiled" working class whites should be replaced by Third World migrants in February, Marlow sent out a frantic, all-caps Slack message to the entire company, ordering reporters not to make a single reference to American Renaissance's original reporting, sources inform GotNews.

Unlike the lying mainstream media and their water carriers, GotNews does not censor the truth.

Keep the GotNews mission alive: donate at or send tips to If you'd like to join our research team, contact

View American Renaissance's research on anti-Trump supporter violence here.

Among the victims of anti-Trump political violence Breitbart News and Town Hall are covering up: Big League Politics Congressional Reporter Cassandra Fairbanks, "Citizens for Trump" author Jack Posobiec, and Rebel Media contributor Gavin McInnes.

Our researchers shut down Facebook's biased left-wing trending news team. They discovered never before seen footage of a young Barack Obama whining about white privilege in Kenya. They debunked and destroyed Hillary Clinton's narco baby mama Alicia Machado, who quit giving interviews because of us. If you'd like to hire our research team, email us at

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #70 

Media airhead compares President Trump to a "suicide bomber"

Elise Jordan, pontificating on MSNBC said:

"He wasted the country's collective time speculating over whether these tapes existed or not. It's a sad day when you can’t depend on the president's word. My advice would be to the Republicans who cozy up to him -- it's just like hugging a suicide bomber. He blows you up in the process with him."

This is a great example of how the #FakeNews media misrepresents the president's statements.

Donald Trump never said he recorded Comey. His tweet addressed possible recordings made by the Deep State.


After all, there is plenty of evidence that members of the Deep State have been illegally recording everybody except the members of Team Obama.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #71 

They’re wrong about everything


Matthew Continetti (FreeBeacon) says events are turning me into a radical skeptic. I no longer believe what I read, unless what I am reading is an empirically verifiable account of the past. I no longer have confidence in polls, because it has become impossible to separate the signal from the noise. What I have heard from the media and political class over the last several years has been so spectacularly proven wrong by events, again and again, that I sometimes wonder why I continue to read two newspapers a day before spending time following journalists on Twitter. Habit, I guess. A sense of professional obligation, I suppose. Maybe boredom.

The fact is that almost the entirety of what one reads in the paper or on the web is speculation. The writer isn't telling you what happened, he is offering an interpretation of what happened, or offering a projection of the future. The best scenario is that these theories are novel, compelling, informed, and based on reporting and research. But that is rarely the case. More often the interpretations of current events, and prophesies of future ones, are merely the products of groupthink or dogma or emotions or wish-casting, memos to friends written by 27-year-olds who, in the words of Ben Rhodes, "literally know nothing." There was a time when newspapers printed astrology columns. They no longer need to. The pseudoscience is on the front page.

Nor are the empty conjectures and worthless hypotheses limited to Donald Trump. Yes, pretty much the entire world, myself included, assumed he would lose to Hillary Clinton. Indeed, a not-insignificant segment of the political class, both Democrat and Republican, thought the Republicans would not only lose the presidency but also the House and Senate. Oops! I remember when, as the clock reached midnight on November 8 and it became clear Trump would be the forty-fifth president, a friend called. "Are we just wrong about everything?" he asked. Perhaps we were. But at least we had the capacity to admit our fallibility.

There are few who can. Conjectures and guesswork continue to dog Trump in the form of "the Russia thing," the belief that the president, his "satellites," or his campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election in his favor. Months after the FBI opened its investigation into whether such collusion occurred, no evidence has been found. The charge itself is based on an unverified and gossipy and over-the-top memo prepared by a former British spy for Democrats.

Compounded by Trump's own mistakes, the Russia story has now traveled so far afield from the original suspicions that we in Washington are no longer all that interested in the underlying charges. What concerns us instead is the possible obstruction of justice in the investigation of a crime that seems not to have taken place. And yet Russia continues to dominate the headlines, command the attention of pundits, generate rumor and insinuations from people who ought to know better.

The certainty of our best and brightest is immune to disproof. Back in May, for example, I attended a dinner with two experts in British politics. These men were not only observers in the upcoming elections, they were participants, and they reflected the conventional wisdom at the time. Teresa May, they projected, would win a major victory on June 8. Her majority might be as high as 100 seats. May's caution was an asset, Labor was a wreck, Corbyn was frightening. At least the part about Corbyn was true. The rest was false, as I was rather surprised to discover when the voters actually had their say.

The list of misplaced confidences goes on. After the initial vote on the American Health Care Act was called off, the consensus was that the bill was doomed. "Don't look now but the Republican health care bill is in trouble again. Again," reported CNN on May 2. It passed two days later.

For weeks prior to Tuesday's special election in Georgia, we were told that Republicans were in trouble, that the polls looked bad for Karen Handel, that a "referendum on Trump" would motivate Democrats in this swing district to support Democrat Jon Ossoff. That evening, cable anchors warned that the night would be long. The race would be close, and winner might not be announced until the following morning. The Real Clear Politics average showed Handel barely ahead, with a margin of two-tenths of one percent. The race was called by the 11 o'clock news. Handel won by 4 points.

What had been billed as a no-confidence vote in Trump's presidency quickly became, after Handel's victory, no biggie. Yes, Ossoff may have doused in gasoline and set alight more than $20 million of Hollywood and Silicon Valley money. And yes, had Ossoff won, this special election would have been covered as a harbinger of the Resistance's coming triumph over the autocrat in the White House. But really, now that the authors of the email bulletins I receive each morning think about it, Republicans shouldn’t be too happy with the result. After all, both Democrats and Republicans have won special elections in the past only to lose their majorities.

True, but Republicans also won special elections in 2001, and expanded their majority the following year. So which is it? We won't know until -- and I know this is a radical concept -- the actual midterm election takes place. Which won't be for more than a year. And by which time, a seemingly infinite number of things might happen. But come on, who wants to wait? So much more fun to pretend to be in the know, to assert with absolute confidence one's theory about the world, proclaim one's virtue, despite all evidence to the contrary.

"Like a bearded nut in robes on the sidewalk proclaiming the end of the world is near, the media is just doing what makes it feel good, not reporting hard facts," Michael Crichton once said. "We need to start seeing the media as a bearded nut on the sidewalk, shouting out false fears. It's not sensible to listen to it."

As the editor of an online newspaper, I am reluctant to agree with Crichton entirely. There are still news sources, liberal and conservative, even in Washington, that seek to report rather than explain or analyze or decipher the context and implications of facts. Sometimes these publications carry opinions, such as the one you are reading. Sometimes they have a little fun. And that is fine, so long as they are upfront about it, and are "half a step up from Daily Caller."

But please, please, please be wary of the supposedly nonpartisan and objective experts who have looked at the DATA and determined which course history will take. In fact, be more than wary. Run in the opposite direction.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #72 
Even now, the liberal media propagandizes on behalf of the Soviet Union (USSR)

The Media Research Center says when the Communists overthrew Russia's provisional government in 1917, they imposed hell on earth. Tens of millions of people died, many of them as the result of mass executions and deliberately orchestrated famines. Those who survived lived as slaves, whose only hope for a dignified life lay in escaping to a noncommunist country. Yet according to NBC News, life under Soviet rule wasn't so bad:

NBC Foreign Correspondent Lucy Kafanov reported on the conditions under Communist rule in Russia for "Nightly News," seemingly comparing them in a positive light to current conditions in the country.

During the June 11 broadcast, Kafanov listed several negative statistics about Russia's economy and said, "It wasn't always like this." She then described how the government "provided" for its people and portrayed the currently dismal economic conditions as a result of the Soviet Union's collapse…

Lucy should have held a mass seance, so she could ask victims of the Holodomor how well the Soviet Union provided for its people.

This news isn't new. During the darkest depths of Stalin's rule, New York Times propagandist Walter Duranty notoriously received a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that everything was wonderful in the USSR. Even since the horror he hid from us came fully to light, the Pulitzer board has refused to revoke the prize, due presumably to the same ideological inclinations that motivated Duranty -- and NBC News.

Like George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It is hard to remember information that gatekeepers obscure in hopes of bringing evil from the past back to life.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #73 

The leftist news media is unmasked


Discover the Network says if there's anything that the most recent presidential campaign and its aftermath have made crystal clear, it's that the major news media in America are teeming with leftists who overtly and covertly promote leftist worldviews and agendas.

Andrea Mitchell, who has been the chief foreign-affairs correspondent at NBC News since 1994, is emblematic of the media's pitiful devolution into nothing more than a propaganda mill.

Like a dutiful leftist, for instance, Mitchell has long viewed white Republicans and conservatives as being particularly inclined toward racism. During a June 2008 appearance on MSNBC, she referred to a heavily pro-Republican area of southwestern Virginia where then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was campaigning, as "real redneck, sort of, bordering on Appalachia country."

In a December 2015 discussion about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's call for a temporary halt on Muslim immigration to the United States, Mitchell said: "I will tell you that the [Obama] White House views the Trump Muslim ban as pure racism … My first campaign, 1968 as a young reporter, was [that of segregationist] George Wallace. I have seen this before."

Mitchell objected strongly in June 2016 when Donald Trump said he was being treated unfairly by U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an Indiana-born American citizen whose parents originally hailed from Mexico. Trump described Curiel, who was presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University, as "a member of a club or society [La Raza Lawyers of San Diego] very strongly pro-Mexican," and said that it was "just common sense" that Curiel's connections to Mexico, and his disagreement with Trump's past calls for stricter border controls, were responsible for his anti-Trump rulings. According to Mitchell, Trump's remarks were "blatantly racist."

In November 2016, Mitchell covered the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank that promotes white nationalism. Though the gathering consisted of scarcely 200 attendees, Mitchell tried to emphasize its significance as a barometer of anti-black racism among Donald Trump's political backers: "Supporters of Donald Trump's election and the alt-right gathered in Washington this weekend at the Reagan Building … to celebrate with white supremacist speech and echoes of signature language from Nazi Germany." Later in that segment, Mitchell related an anecdote she had heard about a four-year-old black girl in Harlem who, by Mitchell's telling, "said she wants to be white" because of her fear "that black people are going to be shot under [President] Trump." Trump's election victory, said the news woman, was having a profound "effect on children in minority, in communities of color."

Over the course of her broadcasting career, Mitchell has made plain her affinity for leftist Democrats. For example, in an April 2016 interview in which Senator Harry Reid said that "Hillary Clinton's qualifications" for being president were more impressive than those of anyone "since the Founding Fathers," Mitchell responded by saying that only "John Quincy Adams, maybe," had compiled a résumé equal to that of Clinton. Just before the election that November, Mitchell characterized a Clinton campaign rally that featured appearances by such notables as Lebron James and James Taylor as "extraordinary" and "magical."

In a similar spirit, Mitchell lauded outgoing President Barack Obama's "extraordinary" July 2016 speech at the Democratic National Convention as "the most optimistic speech, the most generous speech, politically," that anyone could have expected to hear. She marveled at "the genuine affection" that Obama expressed for Hillary Clinton "when he said there's never been anyone, not man or woman, not me, not Bill [Clinton], as qualified to be president of the United States." Extolling also "the creativity" of Obama's "own brilliant speech writing," Mitchell said: "His gift is unique. I don't think we've ever had a President save Lincoln, who is as great a speechwriter as this man."

When Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, Mitchell feared that he would recklessly undo many of the supposedly vital achievements of President Obama. For example, when the Trump administration announced in April 2017 that it would be reviewing the Iran nuclear deal in light of Tehran's ongoing support for Islamic terrorism, Mitchell lamented that "the new administration appears to be ready to rip up" the "landmark" agreement which had been structured to "stop Iran from getting a bomb." Further, she suggested that if the United States were to "break out of that deal," it would "send a signal to North Korea and other rogue nations that the U.S. can't be trusted to keep its end of the bargain."

In contrast to her dripping contempt for Donald Trump, Mitchell more than once has issued words of praise and admiration for Cuba's longtime Communist dictator, the late Fidel Castro. In a December 15, 1999 report from Cuba, for instance, she described Castro as an "old-fashioned, courtly -- even paternal" man and said: "He's not just the country's head of state, he's the CEO." After Castro's death in November 2016, Mitchell reported that many Cubans were "overcome with grief," as exemplified by one young person who allegedly said: "It's painful for our country. This is the president we all loved." "Leaders around the world" were "praising Castro," Mitchell added, noting that "Cuban TV paid tributes all day and all night to the founder of the revolution, still a towering figure in the nation's imagination." Emphasizing Castro's keen intelligence, Mitchell described him as "a voracious reader [who was] very, very aware of everything that was going on, very, very smart and very wedded to his revolutionary ideology." In a separate report, Mitchell noted that Castro was "a declared socialist" who had "dramatically improved healthcare and literacy" in Cuba, and who, over time, had grown to "sho[w] a new tolerance for religion, welcoming Pope John Paul II in 1998." She also suggested that Castro's mass arrests of dissidents were sometimes carried out in response to American policies, such as after "the Bush administration tightened sanctions, cutting off most travel to the island."

This, then, is Andrea Mitchell. One leftist fish in a vast sea of leftist fishes.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #74 

How low can they go?

Scott Pelley says:

"Attack foreseeable, predictable, to some degree self-inflicted... too many leaders who set an example for us to follow have led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric."

A performance not seen since Pontius Pilate.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #75 

The "Trump is under investigation narrative" is falling apart


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that almost every intellectually honest political observer recognized the Washington Post report about President Trump being under investigation appeared manufactured on the thinnest of available anonymous precepts.

In the wake of the Post report, when Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein delivered an unanticipated press release stating not to trust media reports from "anonymous officials" all doubt was essentially confirmed.  There is no 'there' there; and President Trump was not/is not under investigation.  Just another failed media attempt by The Washington Post to undermine the administration, with a blend of partisanship designed to generate an ideological self-fulfilling prophecy.

Toward that end, and to put a final nail in that manufactured narrative coffin, ABC news correspondent Pierre Thomas  reported today that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is NOT investigating President Trump:

WASHINGTON -- Special counsel Robert Mueller hasn't decided whether to investigate President Trump as part of the Russia probe, according to a report on Sunday.

"Now, my sources are telling me he's begun some preliminary planning," Pierre Thomas, the ABC News senior justice correspondent, said of Mueller on ABC's This Week. "Plans to talk to some people in the administration. But he's not yet made that momentous decision to go for a full-scale investigation." (read more)

Yes, that means the prior Washington Post report was entirely false; which makes that the eleventyth time CNN, The New York Times, or the Washington Post has run a report that was entirely false.  They know it, it's not false by accident -- it is false by design.

Just like the previous battle in the intelligence community, there is a battle between Black Hats and White Hats within the U.S. Justice Department's (FBI and DoJ) unelected career bureaucracy; and the media is on the side of the opposition, the usurping black hat team.


If you read the Washington Post report claiming President Trump was under investigation for Obstruction of Justice by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, you will immediately note the first paragraph was framed specifically around "Anonymous Officials". Again, tonight those same "anonymous officials" are mentioned in a Washington Post report claiming Jared Kushner is being investigated.


There is a great deal of false and misleading MSM information; in addition to the layers upon layers of hand-wringing, speculation, and professional financially driven anxiety banter surrounding Special Counsel Mueller and his appointment by Rod Rosenstein.

All of the above said; and with a full appreciation for how the deep swamp creatures operate; and having watched the minutiae of how each element interacts with each additional element over multiple years; well, I just ain't buying any of the popular talking points.

None of the chattering class punditry are taking a full accounting of the entire bigger picture within any of their arguments. In short, they're almost all getting it wrong, because: A.) their emphasis is on the wrong syllable; and, B.) they keep positioning the media narrative as accurate in part or in total.

The media lies in multiple ways. Plausible deniability is a necessary ingredient in almost every media report. Those who operate within the DC deep state; those who scheme and benefit utilizing the manipulative outcomes of media, know exactly what to leak, when to leak, where to leak and who to leak, in order to present situations for their own interests.

Plausible Deniability. EXAMPLE (notice the shift):


Now it becomes "May"?

The DC "Black Hats" are intensely skilled in the dark art of creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Specifically because of this truism, almost all of the downstream reactions end up being pushed based on false assumptions. It is challenging to inoculate yourself from the deceptions; but it is also necessary otherwise you are susceptible to their infection.

Former FBI Director James Comey (and his entire former team) is steeped in the dark arts of self-serving deception. It is a character trait necessary for life at the top of the food chain in the deep swamp.

As such, the fully developed Comey persona is necessarily devoid of any cognitive genetic composition which would frame compassion for anything, or anyone. Comey Inc. looks out for their own best interests. FIRST. FOREMOST. and ONLY.


As we previously discussed -- The risk represented by Robert Mueller is not connected to or about anything surrounding the Russian Conspiracy Narrative; the legal risk is within ‘the leaking‘ of classified intelligence information to undermine the administration, the potentially illegal ‘unmasking‘.

If we avoid all the shiny things, ignore the shell game and reset our frame of reference to the only illegal activity currently known, the leaking; the main illegal activity visible is the illegal leaking of classified intelligence information.

Despite his earnest efforts, there is clear and mounting evidence that former FBI Director James Comey was the primary source of leaked information to the media. The latest Washington Post report is yet another example. The reporter for the Post article is one of a limited number (25) people whom James Comey follows on Twitter.


The risk to Comey Inc. from his media leaking continues to explain everything James Comey Inc. has recently done, said, advanced and CONTINUES TO ADVANCE.

If the evidence of James Comey being the source of multiple FBI leaks reaches the primary artery of investigative sunlight, who inside that investigative and prosecutorial decision making process becomes the risk? Answer that question and you discover the angle Comey is playing to cut off their ability to hold him accountable.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Asst AG Rod Rosenstein et al are the people Comey Inc. need to worry about, isolate and control.

It is not coincidental that Comey Inc. are setting up the future action of these participants to be politically motivated.

James Comey's layer of innuendo against Jeff Sessions is an obvious strategy toward that end. If Comey can frame Sessions as retaliatory against him, he would position any legal action as retaliation.

Anyone who is buying into the story of James Comey leaking the memos to his friend, Daniel Richman, to get a special prosecutor appointed is falling for the shell game constructed entirely by James Comey. More than likely this is the explanation he has already given to Robert Mueller, hence his motive to state within his testimony.

It is important to remember that James Comey told congress he previously met with Robert Mueller to discuss his testimony prior to appearing before congress.

James Comey admitted to this specific "leaking", because the justification to ‘get a special counsel appointed‘ is the explanatory storyline James Comey wants to present in public.

The alternate reason for leaking, the political motives, are much more damaging to him.

James Comey benefits two ways from his explanation. First, he justifies terrible behavior through a prism of his honor could find no other way (his status remains). Secondly, he sets up special counsel Mueller as fruit of a poisoned tree leading to voices calling for Mueller's removal. Win/Win.

Comey Inc. also benefits from calls by Comey's political opposition to eliminate Robert Mueller who is investigating the leaking.

Don't fall for it.

James Comey is no longer in control of the investigative inputs or investigative outcomes.

Those whom Comey has injured, namely Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump, are in positions where they can honestly and openly monitor the larger investigative inputs and follow the outcomes; they can also monitor the ongoing activity of Comey himself.

When someone of Comey's inherent disposition is in a place like this, they initially seek to influence through direct contact (Comey talks to Mueller before testimony). However, when a professional distance is asserted, absent of an ability to engage in direct contact, the fall-back position for the manipulator is to influence the surrounding landscape (media an public opinion).

Never, ever, underestimate the severity or skill of a professional liar.

Never take anything Comey Inc. say at face value the way you would a disconnected observer. Liars lie, it's what they do. Professional liars lie well, it's what they've trained themselves to do.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved