It appears the Department of Justice Inspector General report into the origins of the FBI investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign may finally be released … soon.
As such, the same media that touted the investigation into Trump’s campaign &#8212; which found no evidence of Russia collusion &#8212; is now trying to discredit the report on how that investigation was started and whether any crimes were involved.
On Thursday, The Washington Post published an article claiming witnesses interviewed by the DOJ’s IG would not be permitted to submit written feedback. Later in the day, the Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-watchdog-wont-let-witnesses-give-written-feedback-on-report-about-fbis-russia-probe-sparking-fears-of-inaccuracy/2019/11/14/1236d0aa-070d-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html">updated</a> its story with clarification from the IG’s office, which said those witnesses would be able to submit feedback “consistent with rules to protect classified information.”
“As part of our factual accuracy review, and consistent with our usual practice, we are providing witnesses with the opportunity to review portions of the report that relate to them,” said IG spokeswoman Stephanie Logan. “Also consistent with our practice, we undertake every effort to ensure witnesses can provide their comments and we are clarifying to witnesses that they will be able to provide written comments, consistent with rules to protect classified information.”
The Post had reported the comments from anonymous witnesses who claimed they could not submit feedback and could only review sections of the investigation pertaining to them “in a secure area, after signing nondisclosure agreements.” They were also allegedly told they could not take any notes they made regarding the document with them when they left. All the claims published by the Post were from anonymous sources.
On Twitter, some used the Post’s article to push the narrative that whatever IG Michael Horowitz found in his report is tainted by bias. One of the authors of the Post report, Devlin Barrett, shared the article (he followed up his initial tweet by including the IG’s clarification).
CNN analyst Susan Hennessey used Barrett’s initial tweet to foment the idea that the report would not be credible.
“This is extremely irregular. There are growing signs that there are serious problems with the IG report and questions as to whether this is designed to be an honest accounting of the views of the IG or a political document driven by Barr’s conspiracy theories,” Hennessey tweeted.
In April, The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/expect-media-turn-its-attention-discrediting-ashe-schow">reported</a> that media outlets would do this to Horowitz’s report, since it investigates the false narrative that the media pushed for the first two years of the Trump administration.
At that time, Politico’s Natasha Bertrand went to great lengths to claim the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court routinely used unverified information to grant warrants to spy on U.S. citizens – like Carter Page. She also attempted to redeem the credibility of Christopher Steele, who put together the infamous Steele Dossier, much of which has either been discredited or unproven.
Bertrand, a true believer of the Russian-collusion narrative, tried to suggest Horowitz was not knowledgeable nor was he willing to learn about the FISA process. Of course, Bertrand’s sources for these claims were all anonymous.

Three blindfolded businessmen

As Expected, Media Move To Discredit IG Report Regarding Origins Of The Russian Collusion Narrative

Media Bias

Michael Horowitz

MSNBC news anchor Katy Tur pressed a guest during her show on Thursday about whether Republican lawmakers should be held responsible for gun deaths amid news of a school shooting that was happening at the time in Santa Clarita, California.
&#8220;You were just speaking about senators not showing the courage to put their seats at risk to pass common-sense gun reform, background checks, etc.,&#8221; Tur asked Ret. Special Agent Jim Cavanaugh with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. &#8220;Would you go so far as to hold them responsible for the deaths that are continuing, the lives that are continuing to be lost with gun violence?&#8221;
&#8220;I clearly do. All leaders have a responsibility to act responsibly to help the citizens and it is not responsible to block a debate or to block a vote and that is what&#8217;s happening,&#8221; Cavanaugh replied. &#8220;That is totally irresponsible, that&#8217;s not leadership, it shows no leadership integrity, it is done to protect their seats. They don&#8217;t want to have to vote on the bill because they are afraid in their state or district, their constituents won&#8217;t like the way the vote may turn out.&#8221;
Earlier in the interview, Cavanaugh accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of being too scared to bring a variety of Democrat-backed bills that would enact strict gun control legislation onto the Senate floor for a vote, claiming that Republicans&#8217; seemingly unpopular positions would put them in jeopardy of losing their seats.
&#8220;I would say to Mitch McConnell &#8216;ok boomer, put the bills on the floor — why are you afraid to let the bills be voted on and debated on the floor of the Senate?'&#8221; Cavanaugh said. &#8220;That&#8217;s the most un-American thing that I can think of.&#8221;
&#8220;Soldiers will risk their lives to save children, policemen will, firemen will, but senators won&#8217;t risk their seat to save the children&#8217;s lives,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;That is really disgraceful.&#8221;
McConnell, conversely, has put forth that he would hold a vote on the legislation if any of the bills would ultimately be signed by President Donald Trump.
&#8220;If the president is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly, and I know that if we pass it, it will become law, I&#8217;ll put it on the floor,&#8221; McConnell said in September.
However, the overwhelming majority of the rank-and-file Republicans in the Senate are staunch advocates of the Second Amendment, and, accordingly, many of the anti-gun bills that Democrats have passed in the House are unlikely to gain much traction and advance through the upper legislative chamber.
As Cavanaugh talked to Tur, the active shooter situation at Saugus High School was still occurring and little in the way of details had thus far been released by authorities — including who the gunman was, the motivation behind the spree, or how the firearm in question was obtained. Accordingly, it is not clear whether any of the pending legislation would have had any direct impact on the Santa Clarita school shooting.
WATCH:
<iframe title="MRC TV video player" src="https://www.mrctv.org/embed/544955" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

A Conversation With Katy Tur

WATCH: MSNBC&#8217;s Katy Tur Questions If Republicans Are &#8216;Responsible For The Deaths&#8217; Of Students

Katy Tur

MSNBC

&#8220;So much journalism-ing!,&#8221; Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro is fond of saying in lamenting the generally decrepit nature of our <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/02/11/bad-press/">fourth estate</a> in the era of the Trump presidency. Indeed.
Earlier this week, Peter Nicholas of The Atlantic <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/trumps-first-medal-arts-winners-include-jon-voight/601672/">took particular umbrage</a> with President Donald Trump&#8217;s alleged &#8220;MAGA-fying&#8221; of &#8230; wait for it &#8230; National Medal of Arts award recipients. Yes, really.
The National Medal of Arts dates back to the Reagan presidency, and all types of civilian artists, writers, actors, dancers, and musicians have been honored with the award since then. Trump neglected to honor any new recipients during the first two years of his presidency. Now, according to Nicholas, that is set to change — albeit in a &#8220;MAGA-fied&#8221; direction:
<blockquote>[N]ow, I’m told, he’s poised to announce his first slate of [National Medal of Arts] winners later this month. It not only includes names that seem, in part, to be tailored to the president’s personal preferences — namely, the actor and MAGA enthusiast Jon Voight and all five U.S. military bands. But in choosing the winners, Trump appears to have ignored input from the committee that typically recommends artistic luminaries as candidates for the award.</blockquote>
Nicholas continued to describe that &#8220;members [of the National Council on the Arts] said that was a break from past practice and that presidents normally give the council’s recommendations more credence.&#8221; Specifically, Nicholas bemoans that some National Council on the Arts members &#8220;objected to what they saw as partisan political considerations or a lack of diversity.&#8221;
Put another way, the disproportionate leftists who comprise the National Council on the Arts — and Nicholas expressly acknowledges that &#8220;[t]he council’s rank and file are holdovers from the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations&#8221; — are upset that a Republican president plans to tap National Medal of Arts recipients who seem to align with his personal or political preferences. Quite the story!
Nicholas quoted one perplexed Council member, each of whom spoke to Nicholas on condition of anonymity, who bewailed that &#8220;there was alarm, and some surprise&#8221; when the president&#8217;s award recipient selections were decided. &#8220;This was the first time that we had heard that there was going to be a medal award, and the decisions did not match our recommendations,&#8221; the intrepid Council member continued. &#8220;That in itself was a new experience. We all immediately recognized that not only were recommendations not followed, but the kind of diversity we had striven for in the past in the various [artistic] disciplines had not been followed.&#8221;
Jon Voight, whom Nicholas indicates will receive a National Medal of Arts later this month, is a well-known, open and proud Trump supporter. The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jon-voight-releases-video-praising-trump-says-left-hank-berrien">highlighted</a> in August how he has praised the president as a &#8220;man of truths&#8221;:
<blockquote>&#8220;I’ve said this many times and I am saying it again from the deep truths of my heart and soul: President Trump is a man of truths, love and justice for the American people and also for the people of a sacred place: Israel. Not only does he love our country, the United States of America, but he has a love for the people of all nations.&#8221;</blockquote>

Jon Voight

The Atlantic Slams Trump For ‘MAGA-fying’ National Medal Of Arts Recipients

Donald Trump

Media

The Atlantic

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about the media’s plan to get the American people on board with impeachment. Video and partial transcript below: 
The MRC, the Media Research Council, they do that wonderful <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/impeachment-frenzy-nets-aim-destroy-trump-96-negative-news">Newsbusters</a> site that I like so much. They write this:
<blockquote>With virtually no chance Senate Republicans will vote to remove President Trump from office, House Democrats’ drive for impeachment is more likely aimed at creating a deluge of negative daily headlines hoping to cripple Trump going into next year&#8217;s election. If that is indeed Democrats’ goal, then the three broadcast networks are doing everything they can to help achieve this partisan objective.
Overwhelmingly negative: MRC analysts have reviewed all coverage of President Trump in his and his administration on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts since 2017. Following the beginning of the impeachment inquiry on September 24, this coverage has been even more hostile than normal: Out of 684 evaluative comments included in these broadcasts, a whopping 96 percent have been negative, vs. a meager four percent that have been positive.
All About Impeachment: TV&#8217;s fascination with Democrats’ impeachment push has crowded out nearly all other news about the administration. During the six weeks since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the start of the inquiry (September 24 through November 5), the ABC, CBS, andNBC evening newscasts churned out 398 minutes of coverage to the Ukraine scandal, or more than three-fifths of all administration news during this period (645 minutes).</blockquote>
Here&#8217;s the thing, so now we know everything is negative, and Trump&#8217;s successes vanish. This is the important thing: If Trump is a success, which he so often is, or if the Democrats turned out to be lying, which they so often are, that just disappears. 
Remember when Adam Schiff was going to bring the whistleblower in to testify and then suddenly it turned out that the whistleblower had arranged everything with Schiff before they got started? Schiff realized, [paraphrased] “Oh, if I bring him in to testify, they can ask questions of him,” [and] the story does just disappears. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V5tM2PYxJiM?start=1095" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
So now impeachment starts tomorrow, the public hearings start tomorrow. Now, this is what they’re talking about — remember I called it “Impeachment: The Movie,” because all they&#8217;re talking about is how can we convince people, and the press is basically piling on. The press is working with Adam Schiff, [thinking] “How can we shoot this movie, how can we shoot this story so it really affects voters?” 
By the way, they know now, they&#8217;re starting to realize, it’s not going to happen. It&#8217;s just not going to happen because they haven&#8217;t got anything, but here — just to show you because they do it openly, it&#8217;s amazing — here is Brian Stelter with Ana Cabrera on CNN, wondering how they can shoot this movie, how they can tell this story, so you give a rat&#8217;s what Donald Trump did in regards to Ukraine.
<blockquote>CABRERA: How important is this week in terms of getting the American people invested and interested early on? 
STELTER: Well, this is the first Internet impeachment, right? When you were at the Clinton White House, Joe, the Internet was mostly a text media, most people weren&#8217;t really online yet, there were no smartphones. So this is the first time we&#8217;re gonna have an impeachment process that is clipped and condensed and distorted and remixed in all of these ways and shared on social media. The reality is most people will not watch live, although many CNN viewers will, most people end up watching clips and then hearing about it later in the day as it&#8217;s being digested, whatever is said at the hearings. 
I think that&#8217;s really important. You know, both Democrats and Republicans are going to be trying to control that messaging war. I also think episode one, so to speak, matters a lot. And I hate to say that because we&#8217;re talking about basic democracy at risk here, but from a television perspective, Democrats have to come out strong in that first episode. For the same reason that when we&#8217;re watching something on Netflix or listening to a podcast, we only choose to keep listening if we&#8217;re interested in episode one. So I think the Democrats know that, but I&#8217;ll be interested to see what kind of show they put on on Wednesday morning trying to hook people.</blockquote>
Even Soledad O&#8217;Brien, who used to work at CNN, said that was shameful, that Brian Stelter should be ashamed of himself. But if I may ask you, keep these three things in your head, okay. Three things in your head: Overwhelmingly negative coverage, I mean so negative, it&#8217;s absurd. Like 94% — what was it, 96% — unbelievably negative coverage. [Two], the past disappears when it&#8217;s pro-Trump, which has been pretty consistently pro-Trump. We&#8217;re at peace where the economy is doing well, people have jobs, so things are actually going pretty well. 
So the past vanishes, that is number two, and number three: It’s a show being organized between Adam Schiff and the press, they are putting on a show meant to convince you that this is an important thing. As I’ve said again and again, I think Donald Trump is 100% right on this. It’s nonsense, it is a cover-up, it is absolute nonsense. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. 
</a><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Rep. Adam Schiff And Actor Alyssa Milano Join SAG-AFTRA Discussion On Deepfakes

KLAVAN: Impeachment: The Movie. Brought To You By Adam Schiff And The Mainstream Media.

Adam Schiff

Impeachment

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) blasted CBS News reporter Nancy Cordes on Wednesday during a recess break from the Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry hearing after Cordes argued that she had read all the transcripts from the depositions — something that was impossible for her to do because not all the transcripts have been released.
Here is the exchange between Meadows and Cordes:
<blockquote>Cordes: For the case you are making to be true, every single witness who has testified, more than a dozen of them, would have to be either lying or mistaken.
Meadows: That&#8217;s not correct. Your characterization is so inherently wrong and biased. Let me ask you this, for the American people, how many hours have you been sitting in these depositions? How many hours?
Cordes: I have read all the depositions.
Meadows: You have not read all the transcripts.
Cordes: Yes, I have.
Meadows: I beg to differ because they haven&#8217;t all been released so there&#8217;s no way you read them all. But I can tell you, your premise is not right.</blockquote>
Immediately after Meadows answered her question, Cordes walked away.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Rep. Mark Meadows blasts CBS News reporter Nancy Cordes
Cordes: &#8220;I have read all the depositions&#8221;
Meadows: &#8220;You have not read all the transcripts&#8221;
Cordes: &#8220;Yes, I have&#8221;
Meadows: &#8220;I beg to differ because they haven&#8217;t all been released so there&#8217;s no way you read them all&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/u9vowgMDxd">pic.twitter.com/u9vowgMDxd</a>
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1194673594690727936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
The exchange took place after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) called for a recess after the Democrats questioned Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and Ambassador Bill Taylor for 45 minutes.
During the hearing, Meadows, presumably through his staff, wrote on his Twitter account: &#8220;Mr. Goldman keeps using information from Ambassador Sondland. Folks, reminder, once again: Sondland admitted — point blank — he DID NOT KNOW of any link between aid and political investigations. He admits it was an assumption — an assumption that [President Trump] contradicted.&#8221;
&#8220;Democrats aren&#8217;t just using hearsay &#8230; they&#8217;re using hearsay from an original source who admits he doesn&#8217;t even know the facts. To call this a reach would be kind,&#8221; Meadows continued. &#8220;They have nothing.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Democrats aren&#8217;t just using hearsay&#8230; they&#8217;re using hearsay from an original source who admits he doesn&#8217;t even know the facts.
To call this a reach would be kind. They have nothing.
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1194662317541203974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
&#8220;Folks, as you listen to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent today, remember: Neither of these witnesses have any serious firsthand knowledge of the key events,&#8221; Meadows added. &#8220;Taylor didn&#8217;t even speak to [President Trump] during any of this. Kent admitted he had no firsthand info of any order from POTUS.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Folks, as you listen to Mr. Taylor and Mr. Kent today, remember: neither of these witnesses have any serious firsthand knowledge of the key events.
Taylor didn&#8217;t even speak to <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a> during any of this. Kent admitted he had no firsthand info of any order from POTUS.
— Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/status/1194648009461637121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
Committee Ranking Member Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) slammed Democrats over their impeachment inquiry during his opening statement in the hearing.
&#8220;But we should not hold any hearings at all until we get answers to three crucial questions the Democrats are determined to avoid asking,&#8221; Nunes <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/13/devin-nunes-impeachment-low-rent-ukrainian-sequel/">said</a>. &#8220;First, what is the full extent of the Democrats prior coordination with the whistleblower and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with? Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine’s election meddling against the Trump campaign? And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden and what did he do for them and did his position affect any U.S. Government actions under the Obama Administration?&#8221;
“What we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the Democrats,&#8221; Nunes continued. “Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, I’d like to welcome you here, I’d like to congratulate you for passing the Democrats star-chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the Capitol. It seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama. The main performance, the Russia hoax, has ended and you have been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.”

Mark Meadows

WATCH: Mark Meadows Torches Reporter In Hallway During Impeachment Hearing Recess

Devin Nunes

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about how the sports media complex only allows politics in sports when it comes from the Left. Video and partial transcript below: 
So there is a rule in sports media. The rule is that if you are on the Left and you want to talk politics, then you are a hero; If you&#8217;re not on the Left and you to talk politics, you get fired. 
That is the rule in sports media. We&#8217;ve talked about this — my friend Clay Travis, who is a lifelong registered Democrat as far as I&#8217;m aware, and he fully agrees that the sports media are extraordinarily biased to the Left. Like more so, statistically speaking, than the news media, actually. This is how you end up with these two juxtaposed stories: 
In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/deadspin-sports.html">The New York Times</a>, an editorial by a guy named Barry Petchesky, who is the former deputy editor of Deadspin — [which] had turned into this wild Left outlet that had almost nothing to do with sports, they spent their days ripping on Ted Cruz until Ted Cruz owned them — [Petchesky] has a piece called “I Was Fired from Deadspin for Refusing to ‘Stick to Sports.’”
<blockquote>Two weeks ago, I was fired as acting editor in chief of Deadspin, where I’d worked since 2009. The entire staff resigned, following me out the door after we refused a new company mandate to &#8220;stick to sports.&#8221; Jim Spanfeller, installed as chief executive of G/O Media by the private equity firm that bought the company seven months ago, called me into his office, pointed to some offending stories on our home page and had me escorted from the building.
This is the first time I&#8217;m speaking up about my firing, and my stance remains the same as in the countless meetings with management where I explained and insisted that sports don&#8217;t end when the players head back to the locker room.
We refused to &#8220;stick to sports,&#8221; because we know that sports is everything and everything is sports: It&#8217;s the N.B.A. kowtowing to its Chinese business interests; it&#8217;s pro sports leagues attempting to become shadow justice systems for publicity reasons; it&#8217;s the opioid epidemic roiling N.F.L. locker rooms at least as hard as anywhere in Appalachia, even as the league refuses to relax its marijuana policies; it&#8217;s racist fan chants chasing black players off the pitch in Italian soccer matches; it&#8217;s Washington Nationals catcher Kurt Suzuki wearing a &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; cap at the White House. (These last few stories occurred in the past week and so were not covered on Deadspin; the &#8220;stick to sports&#8221; diktat forced the outlet to ignore the biggest sports stories in the world.)
Reporting sports with integrity requires knowing that there&#8217;s no way to wall off games from the world outside.</blockquote>
This guy&#8217;s a hero! I mean, it doesn&#8217;t matter that Deadspin was basically bankrupt, which is why a private equity firm had to buy them, and reinvigorate them and change everything out. But the idea here is that if you speak about politics from the Left in the sports world, then you are a hero of the republic.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pp0DgVLogMs?start=2919" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
This guy Petchesky, he said:
<blockquote>Deadspin was the voice of the long-suffering fan, finding the humor and the heartbreak in everything in the world of sports. It was the fan wondering why he was paying $200 to go to a football game to watch a team whose owner would rather pocket profit than pay to improve the roster. It was also the fan troubled by the culture and politics of sports, the fan who couldn&#8217;t help noticing that the larger issues of the real world spilled onto the field.</blockquote>
Okay, so New York Times gives that guy an op-ed, and we&#8217;re all supposed to lament the return of Deadspin to pure sports. Then, there&#8217;s Don Cherry. 
So Don Cherry is a longtime hockey analyst for the NHL, and he was on SportsNet and he commented on SportsNet on the fact that it was Remembrance Day in Canada. Now, on Remembrance Day — I’ve been there, and everyone wears a red poppy in remembrance of the Canadian soldiers who fell during World War I — and he was upset because he said who&#8217;s walking around the streets of Toronto, and he saw people who he assumed were immigrants who were not wearing the red poppy. Here&#8217;s what Don Cherry said:
<blockquote>CHERRY: I live in Mississauga, nobody wears — very few people wear a poppy. Downtown Toronto, forget it downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy. &#8230; Now you go to the small cities and you know those, the rows and rows, you people love — they come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you could pay a couple of bucks for a poppies or something like that. These guys pay for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada; these guys paid the biggest price. </blockquote>
Okay, so he said this and, you know, might not be wel-articulated, but he is entitled to his opinion unless he happens to be on the anti-immigration Right, at which point he gets fired. Don Cherry was indeed fired from SportsNet. SportsNet President Bart Yabsley said, quote, “Sports brings people together — it unites us, not divides us. Following further discussions with Don Cherry after Saturday night&#8217;s broadcast, it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down. During the broadcast, he made divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what we stand for.”
I mean, you could just say that, right? You could just have that debate, theoretically. But the point here is that the media will lament if Deadspin is told not to do politics; but if Don Cherry is told not to do politics, then that is SportsNet acting just as a wonderful diverse company should. 
You see the same thing at ESPN. At ESPN, they will cover Colin Kaepernick kneeling for years on end, but if Mike Ditka says something they don&#8217;t like because it happens to be conservative, he says something about how he doesn’t like Barack Obama or something, they&#8217;ll fire him. He&#8217;s gone, end of Mike Ditka. You see that with Curt Schilling, too. Curt Schilling can&#8217;t appear on the network because [he] once tweeted that al-Qaeda was bad and compared al-Qaeda to the Nazis, which, of course, you&#8217;re not allowed to do even though al-Qaeda is kind of like the Nazis.
So just gonna point out the double standard in sports media — one of the reasons why sports circulation is declining. The answer to this probably is to separate off politics from sports again, or if you are going to not separate off politics from sports, then you should, in fact, allow the same sort of freedom of opinion to reign as you would in the political sphere. Don Cherry wouldn’t have been fired for saying what he said on CNN, so if politics and sports are not separate, then let a thousand voices be heard. If politics in sports are separate, well, then supplementing it when left-wing political hacks start hijacking sports websites for their own political agenda. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

New York, NY &#8211; Nov 1: An employee of the website Deadspin show

SHAPIRO: Left-Wing Sports Coverage Pushed Deadspin Into A Death Spiral

Leftism

Progressivism

Sports

On Monday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about an allegation in Nikki Haley’s new book that former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly tried to induce her to undermine the president. Video and partial transcript below: 
All of these mainstream outlets just do not command our respect, and it makes you think a little differently about the president, who is usually the object of their ire.
Even in the administration, we had been told that all the really smart people — all the fancy people who wear jackets and ties and live in the Beltway — they said, look, Trump might be terrible, I&#8217;m talking about even right-wingers, Trump might be terrible, but at least we have responsible people in the administration. Good, serious, responsible people defending the rule of law, defending our institutions and our norms. People like, I don&#8217;t know, Rex Tillerson, former secretary of state. People like John Kelly, former White House chief of staff. They&#8217;re the good guys. They&#8217;re the one defending our norms and our Constitution; Trump is the one destroying it.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g8jqtUd7_84" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Except now in a new book, in a new interview, Nikki Haley is saying that it was actually guys like Tillerson and Kelly who were undermining our norms, undermining our institutions, undermining our Constitution. Nikki Haley writes in her new book, quote, “Kelly and Tillerson confided in me that when they resisted the president, they were not being insubordinate. They were trying to save the country.”
Here&#8217;s Nikki Haley:
<blockquote>REPORTER: Secretary of State Tillerson went on to tell you the reason he resisted the president&#8217;s decisions was because if he didn&#8217;t, people would die. You memorialize that conversation, it definitely happened?
HALEY: It absolutely happened, and instead of saying that to me, they should have been saying that to the president. Not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan, it should have been, go tell the president what your differences are and quit if you don&#8217;t like what he&#8217;s doing. But to undermine a president is really a very dangerous thing, and it goes against the constitution and it goes against what the American people want. It was was offensive. </blockquote>
That&#8217;s absolutely right, and this is where I begin when I&#8217;m evaluating something that the president has done. I do not begin from the position that Trump is always right, [and] I love everything he&#8217;s doing. Whether that&#8217;s on policy, whether that&#8217;s on executive action, whether that&#8217;s on his behavior, that&#8217;s actually not where I begin. 
I do have some policy problems with the president. For instance, I didn&#8217;t like the First Step Act — I thought that was a mistake. I felt that health care could&#8217;ve been handled a little differently, sure. So there are some policy differences. However, where I begin is from a position of assuming the best of the president, and maybe the corruption of the mainstream media. Why do I assume that? Because that&#8217;s exactly the opposite of the script that I&#8217;m being told by the mainstream media, and I&#8217;ve just been fooled one too many times.
The media have told us that Trump colluded with Russia to overturn the 2016 election, that he should be impeached for his tax problems, that he&#8217;s a racist and a bigot, and a Nazi, and a terrible person. They&#8217;ve been lying the whole time, and so I just approach these questions, not even with treating these guys differently. I won&#8217;t even say that I begin assuming Trump is really great, and the media are really terrible. 
I just begin with a little skepticism about those claims. And I give a little bit of grace to the president because it&#8217;s the opposite of what we&#8217;re getting, and usually that appears to be the right way to go. You can even see this with the ex-Trump administration officials who have done well. The ones who have done well, [like Nikki Haley], the ones who position themselves well are the ones who don&#8217;t throw him under the bus. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

President Trump Departs White House For Minneapolis

KNOWLES: How To Flip The Script On The Mainstream Media

John Kelly

Nikki Haley

Rex Tillerson

NPR has provided another example of the left-leaning media outlets claiming there is “no evidence” to back up Republican claims, even when the same phrase is not used when Democrats make similar claims.
On Sunday, NPR published <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/10/777300611/skeptics-urge-bevin-to-show-proof-of-fraud-claims-warning-of-corrosive-effects?utm_source=facebook.com&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=npr&amp;utm_term=nprnews&amp;fbclid=IwAR2q7VYzsqWt4is_yUMjz8pqOr3xGtSHTOXKymMubnaPpBX9f6Kdz9o_1EM">an article</a> about Gov. Matt Bevin (R-KY) claiming election fraud led to his loss. While promoting the article on social media, NPR wrote: “Without providing evidence, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin questioned the election&#8217;s legitimacy. And he isn&#8217;t the first politician to do so. Elections specialists worry that unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud erode confidence in democracy.”
The article is almost entirely about Bevin’s claims, which is fine. NPR glosses over major cases of candidates claiming voter fraud for election losses. The outlet mentions then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s claims about “rampant voter fraud” even though he won his election. Scott and President Donald Trump are the only named politicians in the article that raised doubts about the election. The article does not mention Stacey Abrams at all, even though she has been on a year-long tour of the country claiming she actually won the governor’s race in Georgia last year. NPR wrote a single sentence alluding to her loss, saying, “Democrats also have continued to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/30/did-racially-motivated-voter-suppression-thwart-stacey-abrams/">blame the results</a> of the Georgia gubernatorial election on election administration issues that they say suppressed turnout.”
NPR employed the “without providing evidence” trick after Bevin made his claims. The outlet struck a different tone when covering Abrams, a Democrat. As pundit Stephen Miller <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1194244354564509696">pointed out</a>, NPR did not make the “no evidence” claim when covering Abrams’ non-concession speech.
“In a fiery speech, Stacey Abrams insisted this was no normal concession, decrying what she called “deliberate and intentional” voter suppression by Brian Kemp that she believes led to this result in Georgia’s governor race.”
Abrams has not provided any evidence to support her claims of voter suppression. In fact, voter participation had doubled in Georgia since the state’s 2014 gubernatorial election. Yet Abrams is not called out on her constant claims to the contrary.
Bevin has said there were “a number of significant irregularities” in the Kentucky gubernatorial election last week. He said his team was working on getting “affidavits &#8212; and other information that will help us to get a better understanding of what did or did not happen.&#8221;
The “no evidence” claim from NPR comes just after Politico employed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/politico-claims-no-evidence-exists-that-ukraine-colluded-with-clinton-campaign-dnc-in-2016-dismissing-earlier-reporting">a similar tactic</a> to criticize Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani. On Friday, Politico reported that “No evidence has emerged to support” Giuliani’s claims that Ukrainian officials worked with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee to undermine Trump. In January 2017, however, Politico had reported on just such evidence.
The “no evidence” qualifier has been used repeatedly by left-wing media outlets during the Trump administration. Outlets such as CNN include it in news chyrons to mislead viewers about what Trump officials have said. Other media outlets use it while ignoring context and important information that backs up the claims in order to give the false impression that the Trump administration is somehow more dishonest than any other previous administration. Had Fox News used this tactic under the Obama administration, these outlets would have gone apoplectic.

Stacey Abrams

NPR Strikes Different Tone When Writing About Matt Bevin’s Election Fraud Claims Than Stacey Abrams’

National Public Radio (NPR)

On Friday, Politico’s Natasha Bertrand and Andrew Desiderio <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/08/ukraine-interfere-elections-testimony-068095">reported</a> that Trump officials testified that they had not seen evidence that the Ukraine government acted to stop President Donald Trump from winning the 2016 election.
The authors call it a “conspiracy theory” to suggest otherwise. From Politico:
<blockquote>According to [Trump attorney Rudy] Giuliani, Ukrainian officials conspired with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to help boost the Democratic nominee’s campaign and damage Trump’s candidacy. No evidence has emerged to support that idea.</blockquote>
The “no evidence” line is the one the media likes to use a lot in the Trump era. It lets them dismiss evidence that goes against the Left’s narrative. The line could have been used in the Obama era as well, but the media dutifully reported whatever that administration told them as if it was fact.
In January 2017, two other Politico reporters – Kenneth Vogel and David Stern – <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446">reported</a> that there was evidence of what Giuliani had claimed:
<blockquote>Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.</blockquote>
That seems to vindicate everything Giuliani has claimed.
Journalist Tim Pool, who first noticed the disconnect between the outlet’s reporting, suggested the wording from the most recent Politico story could give them leeway in their claims.
“The way Natasha characterizes what the conspiracy is gives them plausible deniability. ‘oh no we KNOW Ukraine did this, but we meant that they thought it was DIRECTLY with Clinton&#8217;s campaign,’” Pool <a href="https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1193884100597338113">tweeted</a>.
As Politico reported nearly three years ago, a Ukrainian-American consultant for the DNC, Alexandra Chalupa, shared information she received from her Ukraine sources with the DNC in an effort to undermine Trump’s candidacy. She told the outlet she also shared the information she found on Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort’s Ukraine dealings with the country’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides. The aide, Oksana Shulyar, claimed that she and Chalupa didn’t work with Clinton’s campaign to dig up dirt on Trump. More from Politico:
<blockquote>But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.</blockquote>
The idea that there is “no evidence” that Ukraine officials helped Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC to undermine Trump is the height of media bias. One can object to phrasing, but the evidence we have suggests that there was some level of coordination between the DNC and campaign and Ukraine officials.

Hillary Clinton

Politico Claims ‘No Evidence Exists’ That Ukraine Colluded With Clinton Campaign, DNC In 2016, Dismissing Earlier Reporting

Democratic National Committee

Politico

Last week, a pro-Israel group called <a href="https://theisraelgroup.org">The Israel Group</a> launched an important campaign in the broader fight back against the anti-Israel hostility that pervades high-profile media and educational institutions.
The Israel Group, which <a href="https://theisraelgroup.org/about-the-israel-group/">describes</a> itself as &#8220;a nonprofit that protects Israel in the diaspora by developing and launching initiatives to cripple the [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] (BDS) movement against at Israel&#8221; and features many powerful Jewish/pro-Israel individuals on the organization&#8217;s board of advisors, began rolling out its &#8220;<a href="https://theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel/">Battle Against Wikipedia</a>.&#8221; According to The Israel Group, Wikipedia is the fifth most trafficked website but is ranked number one in terms of both global online educational resources, more generally, and dissemination of anti-Israel propaganda, in particular. The Israel Group&#8217;s website <a href="https://theisraelgroup.org/wikipedias-war-against-israel/">describes</a> the importance of the project:
<blockquote>For more than a decade, Wikipedia — the number one online educational resource globally — has allowed anonymous anti-Israel editors to falsely and negatively alter Israel’s factual history in Wikipedia articles pertaining to the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
A cabal of virulently anti-Israel anonymous editors is responsible for decimating virtually the entire pro-Israel editing community. Volunteer &#8220;administrators&#8221; (with lifetime positions), responsible for overseeing the editing process of Wikipedia, have not only allowed anti-Israel editors freedom to take over Wikipedia, they have participated by blocking and banning predominantly Jewish and pro-Israel editors. &#8230;
The Israel Group has been working for many years, under the radar, on a confidential initiative, Wiki-Israel, that combats Wikipedia’s antisemitic bias against Israel. The initiative includes a dedicated website that, among many other things, shows how anti-Israel editors smear Israel — both subtly and overtly — across hundreds of articles, and how the pro-Israel community can stop it.</blockquote>
While the formal launch of the project is not set to commence until January 2020, The Israel Group has teased the endeavor&#8217;s formal launch by already divulging the identities of what it has deemed to be the two most notorious anti-Israel editors on all of Wikipedia: Brendan McKay, a math scientist at the Australian National University (described by The Israel Group as &#8220;the unofficial leader of the entire cabal of anti-Israel Wikipedia editors&#8221;), and Peter Nicholas Dale, an Australian author born in 1950 (described by The Israel Group as &#8220;the most prolific and proficient&#8221; of the Wikipedia&#8217;s anti-Israel editors).
Reached for exclusive comment by The Daily Wire, Jack Saltzberg, The Israel Group&#8217;s founder and president, provided the following:
<blockquote>For more than a decade, there have been many articles and blog posts calling attention to Wikipedia’s clear bias against Israel. Generally these complaints vanish into the ether. Even worse, too many people insist, &#8220;Wikipedia is meaningless, nobody takes it seriously,&#8221; or &#8220;I never go to Wikipedia.&#8221; Both statements couldn’t be faultier. As Wikipedia <a href="https://wikiedu.org/partnerships/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://wikiedu.org/partnerships/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573373339611000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFRKHTkg5jg34hftU0s2K06-uc_Fw">itself states</a>, &#8220;As the top online educational resource on the planet, with more links from search engines than any other site, Wikipedia is one of the most powerful platforms for the dissemination of knowledge.&#8221; Additionally, a <a href="https://firstmonday.org/article/view/2830/2476" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://firstmonday.org/article/view/2830/2476&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1573373339611000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG-aPn3v82LEpOmKz4xxY5iLcT9OQ">majority of university students now</a> use Wikipedia for background information.
The [BDS] campaigns waged against Israel have succeeded through the promulgation of lies, smears, and libels against Israel; and Wikipedia is the number one vehicle substantiating, reinforcing, and disseminating that false propaganda.
As an organization established for one reason — to help cripple the BDS movement — The Israel Group decided five years ago that stopping Wikipedia’s anti-Israel bias is the most important endeavor in the war against BDS. Subsequently, The Israel Group has, under the radar and confidentially, been researching and battling the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel radicalism inside Wikipedia’s pages related to the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
The Israel Group has identified the primary anti-Israel offenders who go to extremes and use an array of techniques to illegitimately silence and block pro-Israel editors.
They’ve spent more than a decade — both subtly and overtly — embedding anti-Israel rhetoric within nearly 1,000 Wikipedia articles. The Israel Group is the first to publicly expose the true identities of the two leading anti-Israel anonymous Wikipedia editors. &#8230;
When the Wiki-Israel initiative launches in January 2020, we will not only reveal the depth of the problem and its many challenging aspects, but we&#8217;ll also guide people who care about Israel on how they can become experienced editors capable of fighting back.
The Israel Group has also investigated other related subjects and groups that receive similar smears and libels — namely, Christians and conservatives. For many years, those on the Right, especially those who support Israel, have been well aware of Wikipedia&#8217;s bias against them. In 2020, the Wiki-Israel initiative will reveal innovative, original research quantifying and proving this bias beyond a reasonable doubt, exposing the methods and madness of the political activists who have hijacked the world&#8217;s most popular and largest encyclopedia.</blockquote>
Godspeed to a valiant and indispensable organization. Sunlight, as Justice Louis Brandeis once said, is oftentimes the best disinfectant.

Wikipedia

Pro-Israel Group Launches Initiative Fighting Back Against Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors

Anti-Semitism

Israel

Palestinians

Former California Rep. Katie Hill resigned after only 10 months on the job &#8230; and it doesn&#8217;t sound like she did it willingly. Hill admitted to having had an affair with a female campaign staffer but denied an alleged affair with her male congressional legislative director — a violation of House ethics rules. RedState and the Daily Mail posted pictures of a naked Hill apparently brushing the hair of her female love interest. Hill blamed the photo release on her husband, since they are engaged in a nasty divorce.
On her way out, Hill was honored by the media elites for giving a lectern-pounding farewell address in which she claimed she was victimized by a sexist double standard. This is downright bizarre. Anyone with some experience in Washington can cite careers ended by sex scandals — Republicans like former Sen. Larry Craig and former Reps. Mark Foley and Christopher Lee, and, most recently, former Democratic Sen. Al Franken. Hill was the pioneering female in this parade. This proves there isn&#8217;t a double standard.
The liberals pretended that because Hill is the first millennial member of Congress to be ousted over cellphone photos, her generation has met some horrifying new demise. In Time magazine, Charlotte Alter claimed in a large headline that Hill merely resigned &#8220;Because of Nudes,&#8221; skipping over the allegations of Hill having sex with two staffers. Alter changed the subject to the risk of sexual messages for everyone, citing a 2015 poll that found 82% of respondents ages 18 to 82 had &#8220;sexted&#8221; in the last year. This completely sidestepped the ethical issues of sex with subordinates.
Democrats are always the victims and never the victimizers.
The New Yorker ran an article unsubtly titled &#8220;The Terrorization of Katie Hill.&#8221; Writer Masha Gessen began by reporting that a mysterious white powder was mailed to one of Hill&#8217;s congressional offices in California and closed the article by insisting that Hill was violently attacked. &#8220;Revenge porn is an act of violence that hurts its victims in many of the same ways that sexual assault does,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;It is also an act that finds easy accomplices, from the people who decided to publish those photographs to whoever sent the white powder to Hill&#8217;s office on Monday.&#8221;
This kind of creepiness happens to both parties. A man was convicted earlier this year for sending threatening letters filled with white powder to President Donald Trump&#8217;s sons. It&#8217;s disgusting to compare that kind of anthrax scare to a reported sex scandal.
Libertine-left interest groups also got involved. Alphonso David, head of the Human Rights Campaign, told The Hill newspaper that Katie Hill was victimized as a bisexual. &#8220;(I)t&#8217;s not unusual or it&#8217;s not a surprise to conclude that she&#8217;s being treated differently because she&#8217;s bisexual,&#8221; he argued. But was he sure? &#8220;We, of course, don&#8217;t have any data or evidence to support that,&#8221; he said. Who needs evidence? To the left, it sounds plausible.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted Hill was not forced out of office by her party and decried Hill&#8217;s &#8220;humiliation by &#8230; cyber exploitation.&#8221; Pelosi added that she has warned her children and grandchildren that &#8220;appearances&#8221; like Hill&#8217;s &#8220;can come back to haunt you if they are taken out of context.&#8221;
But the only people wrenching Hill&#8217;s reckless alleged sexual behavior with staff members out of context are liberals.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Katie Hill.

BOZELL &#038; GRAHAM: Katie Hill Finds Her Shills

Democratic Party

Katie Hill

Nancy Pelosi

The new journalism standards are simple: Orange Man Bad. Consider it the new AP Style Book.
It’s why virtually every journalistic mistake made casts President Donald Trump in a poor light. Quick: name a gaffe that attempted the opposite effect.
We’ll wait.
That reporting credo extends to Trump’s immediate family. And, thanks to the far-left Hollywood Reporter, we saw just that in action today.
The outlet covered the chaos on “The View” when Donald Trump, Jr. and his girlfriend, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Guilfoyle">Kimberly Guilfoyle</a>, appeared today to hawk his new book, <a href="https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/donald-trump-jr-kimberly-guilfoyle-to-venture-into-hostile-territory-on-the-view/">“Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us</a>.”
The debate got ugly at record speed, something that should surprise no one given the liberal show’s fury against President Trump. Even “The View’s” token conservative, Meghan McCain, loathes the Commander in Chief.
Trump, Jr. landed some rhetorical body blows during the debate. <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/booing-is-fing-us-up-view-melts-down-donald-trump-jr-visit-1253109">THR pulled a muscle</a> or two hiding the truth behind them, and then some.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sNiq1cFfT-4" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
The First Son called out “The View’s” Joy Behar for once dressing in blackface. Behar denied it repeatedly. The THR scribe let her lie go unchallenged.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Don Jr. just blew the panel up by bringing up the time Joy Behar wore blackface. Whoopi and her both immediately said he was lying.
Jezebel called it &#8220;blackface-lite.&#8221;<a href="https://t.co/sub4OKedgw">https://t.co/sub4OKedgw</a>
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1192481525369053184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
Then, Trump Jr. mocked “The View’s” Whoopi Goldberg for once defending director Roman Polanski drugging and anally raping a 13-year-old girl as not “rape-rape.”
Here’s how THR characterized that moment.
During another commercial break, one woman in the audience tried taking Goldberg to task for a comment she made more than 10 years ago about Roman Polanski, which Don Jr. tried to repurpose as an attack on Goldberg.
“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” the woman said to Goldberg. “Then be quiet and listen to me,” the co-host responded.
If readers are learning about Goldberg’s “rape-rape” comments for the first time, you’d assume Trump Jr. lied.
He didn’t.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Here is <a href="https://twitter.com/TheView?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheView</a>&#8216;s <a href="https://twitter.com/WhoopiGoldberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WhoopiGoldberg</a> defending Hollywood pedophile Roman Polanski, claiming what he did wasn&#8217;t &#8220;rape-rape.&#8221;<a href="https://t.co/dS0SGJ1ub1">https://t.co/dS0SGJ1ub1</a>
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1192482117990658048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
Perhaps the most egregious bias came with recent news that paints ABC, which syndicates “The View,” as a biased, unreliable outlet.
Project Veritas released a video of ABC News anchor Amy Robach sharing how she had a killer scoop on the late Jeffrey Epstein three years ago. Her bosses, she said, spiked the story.
Here’s Robach, <a href="https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2019/hot-mic-amy-robachs-jeffrey-epstein-allegation-will-media-reveal-the-whistleblower-nyt-library-controversy/">caught on a hot mic</a>, describing what happened.
“It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton — we had everything. I tried for three years to get it on to no avail and now it’s all coming out and it’s like these new revelations. And I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now. Every day I get more and more pissed. … What we had was unreal.”
Imagine the girls who might have been spared from Epstein’s clutches had ABC covered the story at the time?
Here’s how THR detailed this part of the Trump Jr./”View” exchange.
Trump tried attacking ABC for the network’s handling of a 2015 interview with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who has accused the late Jeffrey Epstein of sexual misconduct. “ABC right now is chasing down a whistleblower about all the Epstein stuff,” he said, referring to a network investigation to determine who leaked an internal recording of ABC News anchor Amy Robach.
Trump “tried” attacking?
Sexual misconduct? Epstein was a <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a28352055/jeffrey-epstein-criminal-case-facts/">convicted pedophile.</a>
Add it all together, and Trump Jr. exposed both ABC and “The View” during a contentious interview. “The View” deserves credit for inviting the First Son on the show. THR deserves even more credit for highlighting how entrenched liberal media bias is in entertainment reporting.
A version of this article was also published on <a href="http://hollywoodintoto.com/">HollywoodInToto.com</a>.

The View.

Media Bias 101: THR Plays Defense For ‘View’ Hosts

Joy Behar

The Hollywood Reporter

The View

Whoopi Goldberg

In the days after nine American citizens — three women and six of their children — were brutally massacred by a suspected drug cartel in the Mexican state of Sonora, the mainstream media posted widely-ridiculed pieces focusing on the victims&#8217; alleged ties to &#8220;violence&#8221; and &#8220;religious fundamentalism.&#8221;
Members of the related LeBarón and Langford families were victimized by one of the Mexican drug cartels while traveling to a wedding on Monday. The cartel repeatedly shot at their vehicles and set them on fire, killing nine — including a three-year-old — and injuring three others, including a seven-month-old baby girl.
Notably, the seven-month-old who survived, baby Faith Marie Johnson, was reportedly saved by her mother. Christina Marie Langford Johnson, 29, who was killed in the attack, reportedly sacrificed her own life to shield little Faith from bullets flying into one of the cars. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moms-selfless-act-saves-young-childs-life-in-mexican-cartel-attack-on-u-s-family">The Daily Wire</a> reported Tuesday:
<blockquote>Kendra Lee Miller, a relative of the victims, writes in an <a href="https://www.facebook.com/kendraleemiller92/posts/10162303510900316">account</a> on Facebook about the discovery of Faith hours after the attack, her mother’s quick-thinking actions apparently having saved the child’s life. Family members “found Christina’s baby Faith with the vehicle around her riddled with bullet holes,” Miller writes. “Somehow she had remained untouched, and alive. She was in her car seat, which looked to have been hurriedly placed on the floor of the vehicle by her mother for protection.”
After apparently moving Faith’s car seat to a safer position, Christina, Miller explains, “jumped out waving her arms to let the attackers know that it was women and children in the vehicles. She gave her life to try and save the rest.”</blockquote>
The victims had U.S. citizenship and belonged to a religious community in Mexico. As noted by The Daily Wire, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not recognize the religious community to which the members belonged as part of the Mormon Church.
The day following the news of the attack, the Los Angeles Times focused on the deceased&#8217;s alleged ties to violence.
&#8220;U.S. victims in Mexico massacre were tied to family with a long history of violence,&#8221; the headline said. However, the headline, according to Townhall senior writer <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1192150693676822528">Julio Rosas</a>, was later changed to read: &#8220;Massacre of U.S. citizens aims spotlight at Mormon community with deep roots in Mexico.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
U.S. victims in Mexico massacre were tied to family with a long history of violence <a href="https://t.co/tNUdw20wKx">https://t.co/tNUdw20wKx</a>
&mdash; Los Angeles Times (@latimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1192117695153618945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Some of the victims shared the last name LeBaron,&#8221; the Times story outlined, adding:
<blockquote>&#8220;The LeBarons are among &#8216;a handful of major groups of fundamentalists,&#8217; said Patrick Mason, a historian of Mormonism at Utah State University. But, he added: &#8216;The LeBaron name in recent decades has been most often linked to violence. Unfortunately, this incident only adds to that association.'&#8221;</blockquote>
&#8220;The family is perhaps best known for a series of killings perpetrated in the 1970s and 1980s, in both Mexico and the United States, by Ervil LeBaron — once called the &#8216;Mormon Manson&#8217; — and a group of his followers,&#8221; the piece continued.
Some also took issue with The New York Times for focusing on the victims&#8217; &#8220;religious fundamentalism.&#8221;
&#8220;The brutal killing of [nine] members of an American family in northern Mexico on Monday highlights the long history of religious fundamentalist settlers in the region. Our religion reporter, Elizabeth Dias, details their history back to the early 20th century,&#8221; the Times posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The brutal killing of 9 members of an American family in northern Mexico on Monday highlights the long history of religious fundamentalist settlers in the region. Our religion reporter, Elizabeth Dias, details their history back to the early 20th century. <a href="https://t.co/rfvtzdTN9i">https://t.co/rfvtzdTN9i</a>
&mdash; The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1191822530727829506?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The reactions to the pieces blew up online, many accusing the outlets of &#8220;victim blaming.&#8221;
&#8220;Well the NY Times and the LA Times found who is really to blame for a drug cartel brutally murdering and torching 9 people to death, including kids — the victims,&#8221; said FoxNews.com contributor Stephen Miller.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Well the NY Times and the LA Times found who is really to blame for a drug cartel brutally murdering and torching 9 people to death, including kids &#8211; the victims. <a href="https://t.co/cvDgKKPqA7">pic.twitter.com/cvDgKKPqA7</a>
&mdash; Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1192127369353416704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Comedian and former Playboy writer Bridget Phetasy bluntly wrote, &#8220;This is disgusting victim blaming [L.A. Times] and you should be ashamed.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is disgusting victim blaming <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@latimes</a> and you should be ashamed. <a href="https://t.co/bJWQC5j0sw">https://t.co/bJWQC5j0sw</a>
&mdash; Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) <a href="https://twitter.com/BridgetPhetasy/status/1192136991200006144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Nine Americans, including children, were brutally murdered, and the New York Times doesn&#8217;t call out the evil of the cartels, but labels the family &#8216;fundamentalist settlers?'&#8221; the account for PragerU questioned. &#8220;Shame on you, [New York Times].&#8221; 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Nine Americans, including children, were brutally murdered, and the New York Times doesn&#39;t call out the evil of the cartels, but labels the family &quot;fundamentalist settlers&quot;?
Shame on you, <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>. <a href="https://t.co/CkFUfVhugo">https://t.co/CkFUfVhugo</a>
&mdash; PragerU (@prageru) <a href="https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1192126655478693888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Did the cartel write this?&#8221; Rosas blasted the LA Times.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Did the cartel write this? <a href="https://t.co/72RB4jaixH">https://t.co/72RB4jaixH</a>
&mdash; Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1192125884205064194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Breitbart News&#8217; Brandon Darby similarly posted, &#8220;Serious question, [L.A. Times]. Did someone in Mexico promise you access or exclusives if you agreed to help smear these victims of cartel violence? Trying to understand why you’d do this.&#8221;
&#8220;Or is it that &#8216;the border is safe&#8217; narrative means so much to your editors politically that you just decided to piss on the bodies of the women and children killed in order to protect that narrative?&#8221; he added. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Or is it that “the border is safe” narrative means so much to your editors politically that you just decided to piss on the bodies of the women and children killed in order to protect that narrative? <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@latimes</a>
&mdash; Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1192126127797440514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Is the idea here that the victims had it coming? This is an insane piece,&#8221; Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Is the idea here that the victims had it coming? This is an insane piece. <a href="https://t.co/8xEVTZnVez">https://t.co/8xEVTZnVez</a>
&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1192127080625885184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Steve Cortes, a CNN political commentator, posted: &#8220;What a disgraceful tweet and article from corporate media [L.A. Times]. The clear message: &#8216;[W]ell, these women and children who were gunned down by cartel monsters, they themselves had some pretty crazy relatives &#8230; or something&#8217; &#8230;&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
What a disgraceful tweet and article from corporate media <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@latimes</a>. The clear message: “well, these women and children who were gunned down by cartel monsters, they themselves had some pretty crazy relatives&#8230;or something”&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/9H6Ddaz721">https://t.co/9H6Ddaz721</a>
&mdash; Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) <a href="https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1192150296656527360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;&#8216;The [eight-]month old baby that was shot by a cartel member deserved it&#8217; &#8211; Journos,&#8221; mocked popular political Twitter account Comfortably Smug, adding: &#8220;&#8216;Actually a family getting pulled from their cars, raped, shot and set on fire is good&#8217; – L.A. Times.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;Actually a family getting pulled from their cars, raped, shot and set on fire is good&quot; &#8211; LA Times
&mdash; Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) <a href="https://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1192123371041050630?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
President Donald Trump&#8217;s reaction was not the same at the media&#8217;s. Taking to his Twitter account on Tuesday morning, Trump declared &#8220;war&#8221; on drug cartels as he recalled what was known at the time of the brutal assault on the &#8220;wonderful&#8221; Utah &#8220;family and friends.&#8221;
“A wonderful family and friends from Utah got caught between two vicious drug cartels, who were shooting at each other, with the result being many great American people killed, including young children, and some missing,” the president posted.
“If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing [and] able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively,” Trump continued. “The great new President of Mexico has made this a big issue, but the cartels have become so large and powerful that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army!”
“This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth,” the president concluded. “We merely await a call from your great new president!”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moms-selfless-act-saves-young-childs-life-in-mexican-cartel-attack-on-u-s-family">Mom’s Selfless Act Saves Young Child’s Life In Mexican Cartel Attack On U.S. Family</a>

Members of the Lebaron family look at the burned car where part of the nine murdered members of the family were killed and burned during an ambush in Bavispe, Sonora mountains, Mexico

‘Victim Blaming’: L.A. Times Ridicules Family Murdered By Mexican Cartel, Gets Ripped Online

Los Angeles Times

Mexico

New York Times

Religion

Violence

On Tuesday&#8217;s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the newest tape published by Project Veritas, in which ABC Anchor Amy Robach says in a hot mic that she had the Epstein story three years ago. Video and partial transcript below:
Our friend James O&#8217;Keefe, the undercover journalist over at Project Veritas, he has now gotten hold of tape of an ABC News anchor saying on a [hot] mic — her name is Amy Robach — and she was caught on camera slamming her own network for allegedly sitting on the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago. Here&#8217;s a little bit of what that sounded like, it&#8217;s pretty incredible, actually, pictures and everything: 
<blockquote>ROBACH: She had pictures, she had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years, we convinced her to come out. We convinced her to talk to us, it was unbelievable what we had — Clinton, we have everything.
I tried for three years to get it on to no avail. And now it&#8217;s all coming out and it&#8217;s like these new revelations and I freaking had all of it. I’m so pissed right now. </blockquote>
She&#8217;s talking off air about the fact that now all these revelations were coming out about Jeffrey Epstein. She says, I had this years ago and ABC News quashed it and sat on it, and now she has issued a statement, Robach.
I mean, that just shows you how the media works. Bad look for the media, right? In the aftermath of NBC News basically quashing the Harvey Weinstein story for years until Ronan Farrow broke it, and now it appears that ABC News was sitting on Jeffrey Epstein stuff for years. These are the media you are going to trust? The public trust in the media is already at an all-time low. This is certainly not going to help — nor should it.
Robach said her comments were made, quote, “in a private moment of frustration. I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn&#8217;t air because we could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations” regarding Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, and Bill Clinton. She added that in the years since the 2015 interview, “no one ever told me or the team to stop reporting on Jeffrey Epstein, and we have continued to aggressively pursue this important story.”
An ABC News statement issued says, “At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we have never stopped investigating the story.”
Well, you kinda did, didn&#8217;t you? I mean, just a little bit? I mean, the fact is that if it didn&#8217;t meet your standards to air, well then presumably you should have kept digging. So that is a that is a pretty — it&#8217;s a pretty damning indictment of ABC News. 
That&#8217;s not what she’s saying there, right? I mean, what she&#8217;s saying in that clip is that she had the interview, she had the goods — she says she has pictures there. It’s different than than what she’s saying in her statement, her statements like [paraphrasing] “Oh well we didn&#8217;t have all the goods.” But in that tape she’s saying [paraphrasing], “Yeah, we pretty much had all of the goods.”
If the media was involved in covering up, or at least neglecting to investigate Jeffrey Epstein because they thought it was going to hurt the Clintons, that&#8217;s a massive, massive story, obviously, and goes again to the level of media bias that is involved in all of this. Pretty astonishing.
Mollie Hemingway over at The Federalist tweets: “In addition to these statements not actually being responsive to what the initial hot mic claims were, mostly what this shows that ABC News has indefensibly different standards for, e.g., Kavanaugh allegations or for Covington boys then [sic] it does for Clinton connected pedophiles.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
In addition to these statements not actually being responsive to what the initial hot mic claims were, mostly what this shows is that ABC News has indefensibly different standards for, e.g., Kavanaugh allegations or Covington boys then it does Clinton-connected pedophiles. <a href="https://t.co/grLZmo7iID">https://t.co/grLZmo7iID</a>
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) <a href="https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1191744311186075649?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
Which is, of course, exactly right. They&#8217;re willing to run with any level of speculation, including false speculation about anything that hurts Republicans, but if it could possibly damn the Clintons, then all of a sudden they run away from this stuff like wholesale. Then, you wonder why the American people have trouble trusting the media? That would be the reason. 
 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Jeffrey Epstein Appears In Manhattan Federal Court On Sex Trafficking Charges

SHAPIRO: ABC&#8217;s Leaked Epstein Tape Shows Why Americans Don&#8217;t Trust The Media

Jeffrey Epstein

On Monday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; Knowles talks about how the media oversold Beto O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s appeal. Video and partial transcript below: 
The Beto O&#8217;Rourke campaign is officially over. Seems like it barely began, but it is officially over. I am not going to gloat over Beto O’Rourke’s campaign being over. I&#8217;m going to miss Beto O’Rourke. He is hilarious.
He was the doofiest candidate in the entire race, he was skateboarding around WhatABurger parking lots, he was filming his dental hygienist while she was poking around his teeth. He was hilarious, he was great. He reminded me of every kind of whiny liberal guy who would hit on your girlfriend when you went out of town. You know, he was just like the archetypal, liberal progressive guy. Really sensitive guy, you know.
He&#8217;s out of the race now, which is a huge slap in the face, not to his campaign staffers or his donors or even himself — it&#8217;s a huge slap in the face to the mainstream media. The reason that Beto O’Rourke dropping out matters — the only reason that it matters — is because it highlights something that we talk about every other day on the show, probably [that] you should not believe the press. &#8230;
That&#8217;s the mainstream media for you. And guess who the mainstream media&#8217;s favorite presidential candidate was for months? Beto O&#8217;Rourke. Big, beautiful, glossy-pictures-in-Vanity-Fair Beto O’Rourke. Tucker Carlson over at Fox put together just a quick little montage of the press&#8217;s reaction when Beto got into the race.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1nmW-TG2Wdo?start=175" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
<blockquote>JOURNALIST 1: I saw him for the first time just a month ago when he sat down with Oprah, and me and the rest of people in the audience thought, “Wow, this guy has this dynamic positive energy.”
JOURNALIST 2: Yeah, he has that raw talent, he is very kind of Obamaesque, indeed.
JOURNALIST 3: Women voted for him in the suburbs of Houston who hadn&#8217;t voted Democrat before because they had a kind of “Beto crush” going on.
JOURNALIST 4: You know, he&#8217;s wholesome and he&#8217;s earnest.
JOURNALIST 5: He&#8217;s got that magic dust. Of course, his son is named Ulysses. I love that that&#8217;s his sons.
JOURNALIST 6: And he has that gleam in his eye, somebody, Evan Smith in the Texas Tribune, said seeing him, it’s like a “Jesus Christ Superstar,” seeing this guy in front of people. He&#8217;s got that celebrity aura about him, and in that moment he was owning that.</blockquote>
None of that is true. Not a single aspect of what they just said is true. He&#8217;s not terribly charismatic — he&#8217;s really awkward, and weird, and stiff, and goofy. He&#8217;s not like a celebrity, he doesn&#8217;t make women swoon. He&#8217;s kind of a weird guy. He not Jesus Christ, I know the press actually said he was “Jesus Christ Superstar” — He&#8217;s not. He&#8217;s an ex-congressman who lost a Senate seat, who lost a presidential race, who skateboards around a WhatABurger parking lot.
He&#8217;s also not that earnest. I mean, he tries to affect an earnest persona, [but] he doesn&#8217;t believe in anything. He changes his views day-to-day. At first he said — this was a few months ago — he said, “We will never take away your AR-15s, we&#8217;re not going to confiscate your guns.” Then like two months later, he said, “Hell yeah, we&#8217;re going to confiscate your AR-15s,” shortly after which he said, “Hell yeah we&#8217;re going to drop out of the presidential race.” Because he was going nowhere, he didn&#8217;t catch on with anybody. He actually said in Iowa, where he got onto a table — because this was his shtick for a while, he would stand on top of tables before crowds of fifteen, sometimes twenty people, all of whom were in the mainstream media, by the way — and he said, “I want you to shape me into the presidential candidate that you want.”
That is not the campaign theme of somebody who&#8217;s earnest, somebody with conviction, somebody who&#8217;s charismatic, somebody that people can fall head over heels for. That is the presidential campaign theme of a hack who doesn&#8217;t believe in anything, who&#8217;s just desperate for power, who says from the very first moments of his campaign, I was born for this. I was born to do this, I&#8217;m in it to win it.
He&#8217;s one of the first candidates out of the race.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates Speak At The Polk County Steak Fry

KNOWLES: The Lesson Of Beto’s Failed Campaign? Don’t Believe The Media

2020 Election

Beto O'Rourke

Billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, was mocked online on Sunday over an idea that he proposed which involves having the government regulate the news media.
Cuban recently joined the list of NBA players and employees who cowered to China&#8217;s communist government over the censorship they are imposing by cracking down on the league over those who support the Hong Kong protesters.
“There’s just no reason to get in the domestic policy of foreign countries and it’s not like any of them have made us change out behavior at the NBA,” Cuban <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/billionaire-dallas-mavericks-owner-mark-cuban-says-china-hasnt-changed-anything-at-the-nba.html">said</a>.
&#8220;Any politician that says they will push for a law that says no tv or streaming network can brand, market or name themselves a News Network unless the 6 most viewed hours of every night is &gt;80% fact checked news and opinion is clearly labeled as opinion only, gets my vote,&#8221; Cuban tweeted. &#8220;IMO, It would reduce the partisanship in this country almost overnight.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
IMO, It would reduce the partisanship in this country almost overnight
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1191214499560333313?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
Cuban, who has publicly stated in the past that he would consider running for president as a Republican, was immediately called out over his proposal.
&#8220;Who&#8217;s gonna fact check them, the government? hahaha. You&#8217;ve been to the DMV, right Mark? And the Post Office,&#8221; comedian Mark Dice responded to Cuban. &#8220;Apparently you&#8217;ve never heard of the &#8216;Fairness Doctrine.&#8217; An impossible can of worms best not opened.&#8221;
Cuban responded, &#8220;I have. And I know what it did. Do you? We already have laws saying you can’t mislabel products. I’m not saying a network can’t air whatever they want. Just that they have to be honest about what they are airing.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I have. And I know what it did. Do you ? We already have laws saying you can’t mislabel products. I’m not saying a network can’t air whatever they want. Just that they have to be honest about what they are airing.
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1191216710445088769?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
Dice continued to press Cuban, asking, &#8220;So you will admit that CNN and MSNBC are the worst offenders of fake news right? Surely you&#8217;ll agree that they&#8217;re worse than the grocery store celebrity tabloids.&#8221;
Cuban responded, &#8220;I don’t care which is which. I think they all should label news as news and opinion as opinion. On @cnbc any commentator has to reveal stock positions and affiliations. So do researchers and scientists. Should be the same for news.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I don’t care which is which. I think they all should label news as news and opinion as opinion. On <a href="https://twitter.com/CNBC?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@cnbc</a> any commentator has to reveal stock positions and affiliations. So do researchers and scientists. Should be the same for news.
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1191220108523384833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
Another Twitter user asked Cuban about the obvious problem with his plan, &#8220;Come on Mark, who exactly is going to &#8216;Fact Check&#8217;? You want the government deciding what the truth is?&#8221;
Cuban responded, &#8220;We do it with other products. You can’t say a fiction book is non fiction. And only politicians get to lie in ads.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We do it with other products. You can’t say a fiction book is non fiction. And only politicians get to lie in ads.
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1191216053109624832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
Another Twitter user, who claims to be a political strategist, asked Cuban the same question, &#8220;Mr. 
@mcuban, who does the fact checking?&#8221;
Cuban responded, &#8220;Peer review ? News reporters will hold each other accountable. Sure there will be misses and issues ,but it works fairly well in other originated content industries and would certainly be an improvement over now and In the case of news, reporters accuracy is career impacting[.]&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Peer review ? News reporters will hold each other accountable. Sure there will be misses and issues ,but it works fairly well in other originated content industries and would certainly be an improvement over now and In the case of news, reporters accuracy is career impacting
— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1191228787301781504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
Others continued to call out Cuban, including writer Ben McDonald, who <a href="https://twitter.com/Bmac0507/status/1191227836549488640">tweeted</a>: &#8220;And you&#8217;re gonna do this by having the government fact check news networks? The government decide what is true and isn&#8217;t?Hard pass there.&#8221;
Reporter Aaron Bandler <a href="https://twitter.com/bandlersbanter/status/1191241136209182723">tweeted</a>: &#8220;This is basically censorship.&#8221;
Columnist Avatans Kumar <a href="https://twitter.com/avatans/status/1191231211026313216">tweeted</a>: &#8220;I am assuming, Mark, that your contention is there is an absolute and universal Truth and only a few have monopoly over it. Let me surprise you by saying that it is not true. We need a more plural world, not an intolerant homogenous world.&#8221;

Mark Cuban

Mark Cuban Grilled Over Proposed Regulation Of News Media

It took a dog meme to reveal the full extent of the mainstream media’s decay. The saga began yesterday, when The Daily Wire posted a joke on our social media accounts that depicted President Trump awarding a bronze paw print medal on a two-dimensional blue ribbon to the dog who chased down Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The caption read, “Please, @realDonaldTrump.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Please, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@realDonaldTrump</a>. <a href="https://t.co/nYSJSGlJ8L">pic.twitter.com/nYSJSGlJ8L</a>
&mdash; The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1189241705746386944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The president apparently liked the joke and reposted it, tweeting, “AMERICAN HERO!” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
AMERICAN HERO! <a href="https://t.co/XCCa2sGfsZ">pic.twitter.com/XCCa2sGfsZ</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189601417469841409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
The exchange offered a pleasant moment of levity. Even in an age as politically divided as ours, at least we can still come together and laugh at a picture of a goofy-looking dog to celebrate a military victory.
Or so we thought, until the mainstream media decided to take the picture seriously. “A WH official said ‘the dog is not at the WH,’” tweeted CNN&#8217;s Jim Acosta.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
A WH official said &quot;the dog is not at the WH.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/eJLqBMyKna">https://t.co/eJLqBMyKna</a>
&mdash; Jim Acosta (@Acosta) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1189658623431102465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Voice of America’s Steve Herman rushed to fill the gaps in Acosta’s groundbreaking report. “I’ve requested details from the @WhiteHouse on this photo,” he tweeted. “There was no such canine event on today’s @POTUS schedule but there is a Medal of Honor ceremony set here for later today for an active duty Green Beret.” 
USA Today also deemed the tweet newsworthy and described the meme as a “doctored image.” The New York Times assigned not one but two investigative reporters to cover the joke, which it described in its headline as a “faked photo.” Apple News users received a push notification using the same phrase.
<div id="attachment_59649" style="width: 289px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-59649" class="size-medium wp-image-59649" src="https://editorial.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/IMG_2062-279x300.png" alt="" width="279" height="300" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/10/IMG_2062-279x300.png 279w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/10/IMG_2062-768x826.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/10/IMG_2062-953x1024.png 953w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/10/IMG_2062.png 1120w" sizes="(max-width: 279px) 100vw, 279px" />(Apple News/Screenshot)</div>
“Fine, just the president of the United States disseminating a doctored image created by a right-wing propaganda site,” wrote S.V. Date of HuffPost, a left-wing propaganda site.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Fine, just the president of the United States disseminating a doctored image created by a right-wing propaganda site. <a href="https://t.co/Ky26zdDaXe">pic.twitter.com/Ky26zdDaXe</a>
&mdash; S.V. Dáte (@svdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/svdate/status/1189602652511965187?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Then The Washington Post published the pièce de résistance. “Trump tweeted a photo of a Medal of Honor recipient — who was edited out and replaced by Conan the dog,” read the headline. 
The Post’s story marked the media’s third distinct attack of the day. The first round of reporting about the dog meme wondered if the image had been an act of deception — fake news from The Daily Wire. The next narrative suggested Trump had unwittingly spread an intentional joke. Neither attack gained traction beyond the widespread mockery of normal people stunned by the humorless press. So The Washington Post settled on the third and strongest charge: Trump had somehow disrespected the actual Medal of Honor recipient in the photograph by mashing up the image with the hero pup.
That attack too fell flat because the hero from the original photo found the dog meme funny. The Washington Post tried and failed to track down 73-year-old Medal of Honor recipient James McCloughlan, but the Times managed to reach him by phone. McCloughlan laughed, assured the reporters he did not take offense, and even applauded public recognition of the dog. “This recognized the dog is part of that team of brave people,” he explained. “They are very courageous.” So much for that angle.
Undeterred, the Post continued to insinuate wrongdoing on the part of the meme-makers. “Jeremy Boreing, the chief operating officer at The Daily Wire, dismissed emailed questions about whether the altered photo originated from his publication,” reported the Post. 
In fact, Jeremy responded directly to reporter Alex Horton’s request that he confirm The Daily Wire had “digitally removed Medal of Honor recipient James McCloughan and replaced him with a dog.”
“Alex,” wrote the Daily Wire COO. “On the record: You’ve got to be f***ing joking. Please quote me on that.” The Post was not joking, and it did not publish Jeremy&#8217;s response.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
So, WaPo asked my business partner, <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyDBoreing?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@jeremydboreing</a>, about our Medal of Honor dog meme. His glorious response is screencapped below. Their report then suggested Jeremy refused to answer questions about the picture. Um, no. We just think you’re being f***ing insane. <a href="https://t.co/pEyOH96hEr">pic.twitter.com/pEyOH96hEr</a>
&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1189757002408267776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The most dishonest headline of the day came from the Sun: “Donald Trump baffles internet with bizarre Photoshopped pic of him giving medal to hero dog ‘Conan.’”
 Trump didn’t baffle the Internet. He didn’t baffle anyone — other than the mainstream press, which has become so consumed with hatred of the president and his supporters that it can’t recognize an obvious joke.
You can tell fanatics by their lack of a sense of humor, which requires a sense of proportion and reality. An image of a dog receiving a presidential medal is a funny joke. But it&#8217;s not as funny a joke as the fanatical leftists in the press who took it seriously.

Baghdadi Raid Dog

KNOWLES: Democracy Dies In Barkness

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Dogs

Islamic State (ISIS)

Military

Syria

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Michael Knowles Show,” Knowles talks about the Washington Post’s insane reaction to the killing of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Video and partial transcript below: 
This is an unobjectionable win for the White House. This is an absolute good for the country. They&#8217;ve really done something great here, we have defeated ISIS, and I think the real reason that the Left is so upset about it is really the timing, too. It so cuts against the narrative that we were hearing just last week — the narrative was ISIS is about to re-form. You heard it from some Republicans who didn&#8217;t want Trump to pull those troops out of northern Syria — and not only is ISIS not currently re-forming, [but] ISIS has now been struck the most decisive blow in the history of ISIS. 
This is a cause for some skepticism now, when we approach the mainstream media, because their predictions just keep being so wrong. The greatest example of this is actually not MSNBC — I don&#8217;t even want to really pick on MSNBC. The greatest example of this is The Washington Post. The Washington Post, where democracy dies in darkness, ran an obituary for the leader of ISIS that read — I am not making it up — it said that “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, an austere religious scholar at helm of the Islamic State, dies at 48.”
An austere religious scholar. Adolf Hitler, passionate community planner and dynamic public speaker, dies at 56 — that was one version that went around on Twitter. Another one: Mao Zedong, who saved 20 to 45 million of his own people from having to suffer through the struggle of existence, dies at 82. I put one out: Attila the Hun, renowned world traveler and government administrator, dies at 46.
<iframe title="ISIS Is Dead, Kanye Is Alive | The Michael Knowles Show Ep. 439" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UBS2X7N1J5E?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
When I saw this Washington Post headline, I did not believe it, and it is not possible for me to have less respect for The Washington Post than I currently do. And yet even I said, This has to be a Babylon Bee parody of of The Washington Post. No, it was. It was real. 
They then changed the headline — they changed the headline a few times. It was “extremist leader,” but a lot of it focused on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi&#8217;s scholarly training — on his expertise in Islam, and it&#8217;s such an irony because all we heard during the rise of ISIS is that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. 
Here&#8217;s Barack Obama saying as much:
<blockquote>OBAMA: Now, let&#8217;s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.</blockquote>
Look, let&#8217;s be perfectly clear. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has a Ph.D. in Islamic theology from Baghdad University — he doesn&#8217;t know nearly as much about Islam as me, some guy in America who is not a Muslim. 
He also calls them ISIL instead of ISIS, which everybody called them. Obama would call them ISIL, because if he called them ISIS, it would acknowledge that Obama had completely bungled Iraq and Syria — the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. So he called them ISIL, which was the Islamic State in the Levant, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which was a little muddier.
So Obama didn&#8217;t have to take total credit for it, but he completely bungled the thing up and it exposes this lie. The Left wants to have it both ways. The Left wants to revere this austere religious scholar — this one is like, gosh, this guy really knew a lot about Islam and then say, but also he doesn&#8217;t know anything about Islam. It depends what argument they&#8217;re trying to make about the religion of peace. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Michael Knowles Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show">Watch “The Michael Knowles Show” on-demand!</a>

President Donald J. Trump Watches Raid On Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi&#8217;s Compound

KNOWLES: Remember The Media Warning Us ISIS Would Return? Trump Proved Them Wrong.

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

On Saturday night, the world’s top terrorist killed himself before the United States could take him into custody.
On Sunday morning, The Washington Post seemingly struggled to come up with a headline for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s obituary.
The original headline for the Post’s article about the terrorist leader’s death read, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State’s ‘terrorist-in-chief,’ dies at 48.”
To start, the headline makes is seem like he simply died of an illness rather than in response to a raid conducted by the U.S. military, but at least it calls him a terrorist and notes the gravity of his death. But apparently that headline was too harsh, because the Post changed the headline to, “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48,” according to a screenshot from journalist Yashar Ali.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
They had it right the first time.
The Washington Post changed the headline on its Al-Baghdadi obituary from “Islamic State’s terrorist-in-Chief” to “austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State.” <a href="https://t.co/cs243EVz7W">pic.twitter.com/cs243EVz7W</a>
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) <a href="https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1188473675894284289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Just imagine the Post claiming Osama bin Laden was an “austere religious scholar.” You can’t, because that’s not how the Post described him after the raid that killed him during the Obama Administration. The headline for that obituary read: “Osama bin Laden killed: Leader of terrorist group al-Qaeda was 54.”
Yet when the leader of a terrorist organization dies under President Donald Trump, the word “terrorist” gets removed.
The Post’s headline on the al-Baghdadi obituary appears to have been changed yet again since Ali posted screenshots, as it now reads: “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48.”
The Post’s tweet of the article and its appearance on “related links” on its website still use the original headline for now.
The article itself isn’t much better. It describes al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar with wire-frame classes” and says he “maintained a canny pragmatism.”
“Acquaintances would remember him as a shy, nearsighted youth who liked soccer but preferred to spend his free time at the local mosque,” the Post wrote, as <a href="https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1188477530602377218">highlighted</a> by Republican National Committee spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington.
Consultant Elliott Schwartz also <a href="https://twitter.com/elliosch/status/1188478710128791559">noted</a> that the Post “waits until the 34th [paragraph] to inform readers he was a serial rapist of hostage sex slaves.”
Saturday night, Trump sent a cryptic tweet saying simply: “Something very big has just happened!” On Sunday morning, the president announced al-Baghdadi’s death during an address to the nation.
“Last night, the United States brought the world’s number one terrorist leader, to justice: Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is dead,” Trump said, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-president-trump-confirms-death-of-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi">previously reported</a> by The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti. “Last night was a great night for the U.S. and the world. A brutal killer, one who has caused so much hardship and death, has violently been eliminated. He will never again harm an innocent man, woman or child.”
Trump also described al-Baghdadi as dying like a “dog” and “a coward.”
“He died like a coward … The thug who tried so hard to intimidate others spent his last moments in utter fear, in total panic and dread, terrified of the American forces bearing down on him,” Trump said.
CNN <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/world/mapping-isis-attacks-around-the-world/index.html">reported</a> that al-Baghdadi’s terrorist network was responsible for more than 140 terrorist attacks in nearly 30 countries, resulting in the deaths of at least 2,043 people.

President Trump

Washington Post Changes Headline About Terrorist Leader’s Death, Calling Him An ‘Austere Religious Scholar’

Washington Post

On Thursday, The New York Times revealed that the Justice Department&#8217;s review of the origins of the Trump-Russia &#8220;collusion&#8221; probe has officially shifted into a criminal investigation. The announcement, Rush Limbaugh told his audience Friday, has sent a &#8220;palpable fear running through the Washington establishment&#8221; as the Obama administration&#8217;s initial investigation into Donald Trump and his associates has now been officially turned on its head.
&#8220;Do you notice it, folks? Have you picked up on it? Have you picked up on what is obviously a palpable fear running through the Washington establishment now that Attorney General Barr and his investigator have officially opened a criminal inquiry into the investigation of the investigation of Donald Trump?&#8221; Limbaugh said on his radio program Friday.
&#8220;Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry, according to two people familiar with the matter,&#8221; the Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/politics/john-durham-criminal-investigation.html">reported</a> Thursday. &#8220;The move gives the prosecutor running it, John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand jury and to file criminal charges.&#8221;
&#8220;The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies,&#8221; the Times stressed.
The development, Rush said, has led to a clarification for him about the Democrats&#8217; actions in recent weeks.
&#8220;I am constantly trying to analyze and figure out what the left is doing, the context in which they’re doing it, what their next moves are gonna be, but more importantly, what’s really behind it all,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And the thing that, of course, is top drawer today and has been all week is what little Adam Pencil Neck Schiff is doing behind closed doors in a so-called impeachment inquiry that doesn’t feature the opposition party, it doesn’t feature cross-examination, no transcripts are released, everything’s being done in private, only selected leaks.&#8221;
&#8220;We’ve all assumed that the overall purpose, I mean, the gigantic umbrella under which all this is happening is get rid of Trump, reverse the election results 2016,&#8221; he said. &#8220;However, I think there’s something more specific now that is more obvious to me than ever. I think what Schiff and Pelosi and this entire so-called impeachment inquiry is really all about is derailing the Barr investigation. And I think that’s why they’re in such a hurry.&#8221;
The impeachment inquiry is a &#8220;race&#8221; against the Justice Department investigation, Rush suggested.
&#8220;I think it’s really about trying to come to something, they’re trying to convince the American people that Trump is guilty and should not be president before Barr and Durham and Horowitz have time to reveal anything,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;We now have an official criminal investigation,&#8221; said Limbaugh. &#8220;That means that Durham and Barr can impanel a grand jury. And this is why the McCabes and the Brennans and the Clappers are running around today in a near panic. A grand jury, that’s where they go in and they don’t get their lawyers in there and they don’t get their representatives in there. They’re not on CNN. They’re in a grand jury and everybody knows what happens with grand juries: indictments. And so the race is now really on.
Limbaugh cautioned that there is one &#8220;downside&#8221; to the review morphing into a full-fledged investigation with a grand jury: &#8220;we’re not gonna get any answers to that any time soon. That’s the downside. If they’re just now forming an official inquiry, the grand jury has to be impaneled and the testimony has to be taken.&#8221;
Rush also suggested that he fears the Democrats will beat the Trump administration to the punch.
&#8220;It’s obvious that Barr and Durham are going to be thorough here and it’s obvious that this step has been taken because they have found criminal behavior,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And I’m pretty certain that they are dead serious about getting to the bottom of it, which means they’re not going to hurry through it.&#8221;
As for all of the &#8220;Washington establishment&#8221; running around in a &#8220;panic,&#8221; Limbaugh said that after spending their lives believing they were &#8220;immune from the regular rigors of the law,&#8221; they&#8217;re now having to face the fact that they&#8217;re not. &#8220;They may have fretted about it, but they never let themselves believe this day would come,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Now it has, and all of the perceptions that they hold are going to be changed dramatically.&#8221;
Transcript via <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2019/10/25/the-race-is-on-can-they-get-rid-of-trump-before-barr-can-indict/">RushLimbaugh.com</a>

Andrew McCabe, left, and James Comey. (Photos by Jahi Chikwendi

Limbaugh: New DOJ Investigation Clarifies The Democrats&#8217; Impeachment Strategy

Rush Limbaugh

William Barr

Menu