As is so often the case, left-leaning media outlets only cover news that makes the Left look bad from the angle of Republican reaction. Often, these headlines use words like “seize” or “pounce” to indicate that Republicans are responding to something that should be its own news story.
Typically, the original news story gets little to no coverage on its own. The latest example comes from Politico, which did not report on a van purposefully ramming a GOP tent full of volunteers, but did see fit to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-man-deliberately-rams-vehicle-into-gop-tent-full-of-volunteers-trump-responds">cover</a> the Republican response to the attack. The headline for the article reads, “Republicans vow ‘revenge’ at ballot box after volunteers nearly hit by van.”
“Revenge,” is doing a lot of work in the title, making it appear as though the GOP wants violence in response to violence. Politico’s article takes extra care to downplay the attack and emphasize how the Republican Party of Florida has reacted to the event.
“During a press conference in Jacksonville, they described how Timm nearly hit people, made an obscene gesture, and started recording the incident on his phone. They used the event to make a plea for donations to the party,” the outlet reported.
The outlet noted that the man driving the van, who is not being named by The Daily Wire, was arrested and charged with “aggravated assault, criminal mischief and driving with a suspended license.” Then the outlet again downplays the attack and even questions whether it was politically motivated.
“No one was injured in the attack, but Republicans say their volunteers jumped out of the way to avoid the van,” the outlet reported. “Local authorities are looking into whether the attack was politically motivated.”
The attack on Republican volunteers was largely ignored by mainstream media outlets, leading pundit Stephen Miller to speculate how a similar incident would be treated if someone drove a van into Democrat volunteers.
“Going out on a limb and suggesting if a MAGA hat wearing yokel drove a van through a Warren or Sanders voter registration tent, it would be the only thing journalists &amp; major news outlets would be talking about right now,” Miller tweeted on Sunday.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Going out on a limb and suggesting if a MAGA hat wearing yokel drove a van through a Warren or Sanders voter registration tent, it would be the only thing journalists &amp; major news outlets would be talking about right now.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1226500089809473536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“They would be clearing graphite off the roof at CNN right now,” he continued. “There would be Charlottesville comparisons. Jim Acosta would chain himself to the [White House] Fence. [Jake] Tapper would be demanding Kelkyanne [sic] Conway personally accept responsibility and Fredo [Chris Cuomo] would be quote tweeting people with 12 followers.”
“There would be 5 NY Times OP-Eds about Trump’s SOTU speech was the motivation. NBC reporters would be scouring 4Chan. Wash Post front page would read TERROR IN JACKSONVILLE. Candidates would be gathering for candlelight vigils,” Miller continued.
“Jacksonville and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefeatHate?src=hashtag_click">#DefeatHate</a> would be top trends on Twitter. Every celebrity with a political following would be making Hitler comparisons. Stelter &amp; Darcy would be blaming some Fox &amp; Friends segment because that’s what Media Matters would be doing. There would be marches,” he added.
“But of course there’s none of that, and you don’t have to like Trump to notice this. You just have to have a pulse,” Miller concluded.

Accusing

Politico Covers Truck Hitting Republican Volunteers – But Only From Angle Of GOP Reaction

Media Bias

Politico

On Monday, America&#8217;s top-rated talk radio host Rush Limbaugh stunned the nation by announcing that he was recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, describing the day as &#8220;one of the most difficult&#8221; in recent memory for him because he had to inform both his staff and his faithful audience about the dire diagnosis. Despite having to deliver the hard news, Limbaugh didn&#8217;t let what he is facing get in the way of what he called &#8220;the source of my greatest satisfaction professionally, personally&#8221;: performing his duties as a beloved conservative host as &#8220;competently and as expertly&#8221; as he does &#8220;each and every day.&#8221;
While he dedicated one segment Monday to the announcement, for the rest of the show Rush addressed less personal and heavy topics, including what he said was one of his &#8220;favorite stories of the weekend.&#8221; The story, written by Politico chief Washington correspondent and CNN senior political analyst Ryan Lizza, addresses a quality among Donald Trump supporters — and conservatives in general — that Limbaugh has touched on in the past: &#8220;joy.&#8221;
&#8220;I had not been to a Trump rally since the 2016 campaign,&#8221; Lizza wrote in the piece, titled “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/unexpected-joy-trump-rally-iowa-109864">The Unexpected Joy at a Trump Rally in Iowa</a>&#8221; and published Friday. &#8220;And the first thing I noticed Thursday night when Donald Trump and Mike Pence spoke at Drake University in Des Moines was how much more joyous the event was for his supporters than what I remember from four years ago.&#8221;
&#8220;In 2016, perhaps because Republicans were out of power and Trump was running purely against the system, his crowds often had an undertone of anger that bordered on menacing,&#8221; Lizza continued. &#8220;But with Trump in power, presiding over peace and prosperity, on the cusp of beating two articles of impeachment, and dominating the news when it should be the Democratic candidates’ moment to shine, his fans seemed in a celebratory mood.&#8221;
While Lizza found himself surprised by joy at the Des Moines rally, Rush was not because, as he explained, Americans living outside the Washington bubble have a lot to be joyful about.
Limbaugh led into the discussion by noting how out of touch Democrats are when it comes to Trump rallies. &#8220;Do you realize how few Democrats, elected Democrats, Washington Democrats, DNC kind of Democrats, do you realize how few of them have actually ever been to a Trump rally?&#8221; he <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/02/03/ryan-lizza-goes-to-a-trump-rally-discovers-joy-2/">asked</a>. &#8220;You could probably count them on one hand. And I’m not exaggerating.&#8221;
&#8220;They watch these things, if they watch, from afar on TV, and they mock them and they make fun of the people there,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And they laugh and make fun of Trump. And they look at these crowds, three-day crowds of 75,000 to 100,000 people wanting in to a 10,000-seat the venue. And somehow they tell themselves it doesn’t mean anything. It’s just Looney Tunes. It’s just white supremacists or white nationalists or a bunch of racist pigs or a bunch of chauvinists, however they characterize and mock Trump voters.&#8221;
But when Lizza finally goes to one after four years of keeping away, he finds something &#8220;unexpected&#8221; — all that &#8220;anger&#8221; and &#8220;resentment&#8221; and &#8220;bitterness&#8221; supposedly characterizing the &#8220;deplorables&#8221; is conspicuously missing. In their place was a sense of positivity and celebration of a shared &#8220;peace and prosperity.&#8221;
&#8220;&#8216;Presiding over peace and prosperity,'&#8221; Limbaugh read, quoting Lizza. &#8220;That’s the Drive-By Media. They know. They know. If there were a Democrat, peace and prosperity would be the only thing you’d be seeing characterizing the Democrat administration. Except there can never be peace and prosperity in America with the Democrat Party in charge as it is currently constituted.&#8221;
As evidence, Rush pointed to the Democratic presidential candidates. &#8220;What are they promising to do?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;Dismantle all of this. Dismantling all of this that’s creating what ought to be a new normal, a new normal not of permanent decline, not of America’s best days are behind us.&#8221;
Noting Trump&#8217;s quote from the rally in Des Moines that, unlike during previous presidential impeachments, &#8220;This is a happy period for us,&#8221; Limbaugh said, &#8220;Boy, is that ever true. Have these people stepped in it or what?&#8221;
Limbaugh then contrasted the joy of the Trump crowd with Washington.
&#8220;There isn’t any joy in official Washington,&#8221; he said. &#8220;There hasn’t been in 3-1/2 or more years. In fact, on the Democrat Party side, the left side — and, folks, I’m not saying this because it’s rote. It’s really true. There isn’t any joy, on average, any day for American liberals five years ago, 10 years ago, yesterday, tomorrow.&#8221;
Limbaugh closed by summarizing an argument he&#8217;s made in the past about the joylessness of liberalism.
&#8220;Liberalism is constitutionally, foundationally incapable of providing joy for people because it’s rooted in grievance,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It’s rooted in anger, misery, and unhappiness and the false promises to fix all that.&#8221;
&#8220;So this guy finally takes the plunge, braves a Trump rally,&#8221; he added. &#8220;He doesn’t find angry white supremacists, white nationalists. He doesn’t find any anger at all. He finds people loving life, living the dream, enjoying themselves and where they are, enjoying each other. Stop and think. That must be so odd, so unique for these people that an entire news article was written about it. As if joy and peace and prosperity and meeting new friends and having a great time making new friends — that’s so unusual that it is worth writing a story about.&#8221;
As for how Limbaugh can keep his sense of joy amid the difficult diagnosis, he hinted at what&#8217;s behind it in his broadcast Monday. &#8220;I told the staff today that I have a deeply personal relationship with God that I do not proselytize about, but I do,&#8221; he said — adding with his characteristically joyful chuckle, &#8220;And I have been working that relationship tremendously.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-rush-limbaugh-announces-he-has-advanced-lung-cancer">Rush Limbaugh Announces He Has Advanced Lung Cancer</a>
Transcript via <a href="https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/02/03/ryan-lizza-goes-to-a-trump-rally-discovers-joy-2/">RushLimbaugh.com</a>
&nbsp;

President Trump

Limbaugh: CNN Analyst Goes To Trump Rally, Discovers ‘Unexpected Joy’

Conservatism

Donald Trump

Liberalism

Rush Limbaugh

In an exclusive report Tuesday, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/james-biden-lobbyist-virgin-islands-099318">Politico</a> revealed a previously undisclosed land deal involving Joe Biden&#8217;s brother that the left-leaning outlet presents as furthering &#8220;a pattern in which members of the Biden family have engaged in financial dealings with people with an interest in influencing the former vice president.&#8221;
The newly reported deal, which began in 2005, involved Biden&#8217;s brother James Biden and Scott Green, who was a staffer in the 1980s and &#8217;90s for then-Senator Biden before becoming a lobbyist, and whose clients, Politico underscores, &#8220;benefited from Biden’s support and appropriations requests&#8221; both &#8220;before and after&#8221; the deal with his brother.
&#8220;In 2005, Joe Biden’s brother bought an acre of land with excellent ocean views on a remote island in the Caribbean for $150,000,&#8221; Politico&#8217;s Ben Schreckinger reports. &#8220;He divided it into three parcels, and the next year a lobbyist close to the Delaware senator bought one of the parcels for what had been the cost of the entire property. Later, the lobbyist gave Biden’s brother a mortgage loan on the remaining parcels.&#8221;
The lobbying firm Green co-founded, Schreckinger explains, &#8220;specializes in federal contracts for niche law enforcement and national security programs for which Biden long advocated.&#8221; It also makes a point of featuring Biden on its website, including a quote from the former Senator praising Green&#8217;s &#8220;emotional investment&#8221; in his work.
Many details surrounding the deal are &#8220;unclear,&#8221; Schreckinger writes, including whether Joe Biden was aware of the transactions at the time. But it is clear that after the deal Green &#8220;continued to lobby on issues over which Biden wielded influence and to meet with Biden’s staff&#8221; and &#8220;continued to land government contracts related to federal programs for which Biden advocated.&#8221;
Biden&#8217;s campaign declined a request for comment from Politico, but spokesperson Andrew Bates offered a blistering response: &#8220;Joe Biden was wrong. Politico does have a sense of humor. Because this story is an absolute joke.&#8221;
Politico notes that the property in question &#8220;remained vacant and undeveloped.&#8221; Why Green purchased it from James Biden and why Biden took out a loan with the lobbyist rather than a bank remain &#8220;unclear,&#8221; Schreckinger writes. Also unclear is why Green paid a &#8220;dramatically higher price&#8221; for the property.
In the report, Schreckinger also provides a brief bio sketch of James Biden that includes some unflattering details:
<blockquote>James Biden, six years Joe’s junior, served as finance chairman on his older brother’s first Senate campaign in 1972. He went on to pursue an entrepreneurial career that regularly intersected with Joe’s public duties. He once sought to launch a Washington lobbying firm, but the venture was cut short when his would-be partners were convicted of attempting to bribe a judge in an unrelated matter. He has previously been accused by former business contacts of seeking to exploit the former vice president’s clout for financial gain in court proceedings in<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> New York</a>,<a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/26/joe-biden-brother-2020-1475897" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Kentucky</a>, and<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/09/26/joe-biden-brother-cancer-initiative-investment-pitch-001675" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Florida</a>, though he has denied such claims.</blockquote>
<section class="page-content__row page-content__row--story main-section">
<div class="container container--story story-layout--fixed-fluid">
<div class="container__column container__column--story">
<div class="container__row container__row--story story-layout--fluid-fixed">
<div class="container__column container__column--story center-horizontally">
<div class="story-text">
(<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/james-biden-lobbyist-virgin-islands-099318">Read Politico&#8217;s full report here</a>.)
The issue of corrupt dealings among the Bidens is at the heart of the impeachment trial, as Trump&#8217;s camp maintains that the president&#8217;s urging of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to &#8220;look into&#8221; corruption allegations involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden was based on legitimate concerns.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-responds-to-gao-report-saying-he-violated-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid">Trump Responds To GAO Report Saying He Violated Law In Withholding Ukraine Aid</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

Sen. Joe Biden Speaks About His Upcoming Trip To Iraq

Politico Exposes Land Deal Between Biden’s Brother And Lobbyist; Biden Spokesman Blasts Politico

Joe Biden

As Democrats continue to hold impeachment hearings in the House, knowing full well Republicans in the Senate won’t go along with their gambit, Politico reporters <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/05/trump-censure-impeachment-republicans-075572">attempted</a> to get the Senate GOP to consider censuring President Donald Trump instead.
This way, Democrats could save face and get some sort of “win” for their months-long impeachment investigation by getting the president of the united states censured without actually removing him from office. Of course, it was not Republicans who came up with this idea, but two Politico reporters, who asked Republicans in the House and Senate if they would support such a measure. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) revealed the ruse in his response, saying he was “not in favor of” censure and that the senate would “wait and see what comes over here, but I haven’t heard anybody discuss it. I haven’t even thought about it until you raised it.”
Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD), told the reporters “I doubt it,” when asked if the GOP was considering censure as an alternative to impeachment.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) told Politico he didn’t think the impeachment alternative would get “many, if any, Republican votes” and said such a move “would be an admission that they did something terribly wrong. I just don’t see it.”
Rep. Steve Chabot, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee and was present during Wednesday’s impeachment hearing (where three Democrat-called scholars said Trump should be impeached while a Republican-called scholar said he should not be), told Politico he didn’t “think the Democrats are going to offer” censure as an option, nor did he “think there would be Republican support.”
Politico framed Republican’s refusal to support censure as an issue of political bias:
Even some Republicans who have expressed concerns about Trump’s actions said they’ve given little thought to a rebuke that falls short of impeachment. That antipathy for even a symbolic reprimand of Trump underscores how the president has transformed the Republican Party, in which any break with him can be seen as a personal slight.
An alternative read on the refusal would be that Republicans see the impeachment hearing as a charade and don’t think Trump committed an impeachable offense or even something that out of the norm for a president. Recall that while he was Vice President, Joe Biden helped get a Ukraine prosecutor fired who was investigating a company that employed his son, Hunter. Also recall the Obama administration approved warrants to spy on Trump campaign officials based flimsy rumors about what they may or may not have said in private meetings with individuals who had been assets for government institutions. For Republicans to accept censuring Trump, they would be giving in to the Democrat narrative that Trump has committed an impeachable offense while President Barack Obama did nothing wrong while he was president. Republicans easily could have held impeachment hearings against Obama. The media would have called them a “charade.”
Politico referenced President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, ignoring the difference that Clinton committed an obvious crime – perjury, when he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Democrats have had to change the name of the crime they claim Trump committed – from quid pro quo to bribery, even though they have not presented evidence that Trump offered Ukraine money in exchange for something – in order to continue selling impeachment to a wary nation.

Marco Rubio

Politico Tries To Get Republicans To Accept Censuring Trump

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

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Politico told The Daily Wire that the headline was not &#8220;quickly changed&#8221; but was kept up for several hours and noted the reference to Rahm Emanuel. The spokesperson also said headlines are routinely changed &#8220;for a variety of different reasons &#8211; from AB testing to changing up the story lineup on the homepage.&#8221; The article has been updated to reflect this response.
On Friday morning, Politico Magazine published an opinion piece from author and founding editor of Politico John Harris titled, “Just Another Day In F***nutsville.”
The outlet updated the headline to read: “Trump Killed the Seriousness of Impeachment.” For a while, the URL of the article still included the original title.
Steve Guest, the rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, flagged the headline and included a screenshot of the original headline.
“Politico&#8217;s original headline: ‘Just another day in Fucknutsville.’ Politico&#8217;s updated headline: ‘How Trump killed the seriousness of impeachment,’&#8221; Guest tweeted. “But they can&#8217;t change the URL. It still says ‘fucknutsville.’&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Politico&#8217;s original headline: &#8220;Just another day in Fucknutsville.&#8221;
Politico&#8217;s updated headline: &#8220;How Trump killed the seriousness of impeachment&#8221;
But they can&#8217;t change the URL. It still says &#8220;fucknutsville&#8221;<a href="https://t.co/jH8qUGveVb">https://t.co/jH8qUGveVb</a> <a href="https://t.co/ljymOiZkel">pic.twitter.com/ljymOiZkel</a>
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1177590353542684672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Andrew Follett, an analyst at the Club For Growth, provided a screenshot of the unchanged URL.
“What&#8217;s truly shocking about this is that they instantly tried to cover up their potty-mouths,” Follett tweeted. “#FakeNews.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
What&#8217;s truly shocking about this is that they instantly tried to cover up their potty-mouths.<a href="https://t.co/Xgug7w1vlv">https://t.co/Xgug7w1vlv</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FakeNews?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FakeNews</a> <a href="https://t.co/wFzfAOg1Qm">pic.twitter.com/wFzfAOg1Qm</a>
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewCFollett/status/1177594736787562496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The article in question is about the tactics media outlets have used this week to make sure that President Donald Trump’s conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky looked as damaging and illegal as possible. It begins:
<blockquote>Big font, double-decker headlines, homepage takeovers: It’s been a big week in the news business for visual devices like these.
Editors turn to these once- or twice-a-year headlines to signal to the reader something more than that the news is BIG. Almost by definition in the modern media environment, when the news is big enough to justify big type it’s also news that the reader already knows. Heard about it, probably, within moments after it happened.</blockquote>
The term “F***nutsville” comes from President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel using it as a slur against people who don’t see every news story as the outrage the media wants them to see it as.
Harris goes on in his article to compare Democrats’ most recent calls for impeachment (which have come every few weeks during the Trump presidency) to the impeachment trials of President Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Harris is correct that “Impeachment proceedings used to be news of unquestionable gravity,” but he is wrong about how caused the lack of seriousness. It was not Trump, but the media’s relentless and embarrassing attempts to destroy him. This week, those “big fond, double-decker headlines, homepage takeovers” misinformed readers about anything and everything relating to Trump’s call with Zelensky.
The original “bombshell” was a whistleblower complaint, but it turned out the whistleblower never heard the phone call and was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/yup-looks-big-anti-trump-whistleblower-story-was-ashe-schow">merely reporting a rumor</a>. When the Trump administration released the rough transcript of the phone call, numerous media outlets reported that Trump asked a “favor” of Zelensky – to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. The outlets <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/dishonest-media-leaving-out-what-trumps-favor-from-ukraine-president-actually-was">cut out more than 500 words</a> of the transcript to arrive at this conclusion. The actual “favor,” Trump asked for was for Ukraine to cooperate with the U.S. investigation into the origins of Russiagate – the two-year-long claim by media outlets and Democrats that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Now, it turns out the whistleblower was a “CIA officer” who may have been a holdover from former CIA Director John Brennan – who helped spark the Russiagate hoax.

Cropped Hand Holding Pencil By Error Text On Paper

Politico Publishes Article Titled, ‘Just Another Day In F***nutsville’ Before Changing

Ukraine

Back in the 1980s, President Reagan used to dodge questions from the press as he walked toward his presidential helicopter, Marine One, on the lawn of the White House. With ABC News reporter Sam Donaldson in his terrible toupee yelling &#8220;Sir! Sir!&#8221; at him, Reagan would cup a hand around his ear, shrug his shoulders as if he couldn&#8217;t hear, then walk off, all without missing a stride.
The press complained loudly back then.
But President Trump does it a bit differently. As he strolls toward his chopper, he stops and takes questions — sometimes a whole bunch of questions. And wouldn&#8217;t you know it, the press don&#8217;t like THAT either.
One reporter told <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/22/trump-marine-one-press-briefings-1471629">Politico</a> that if Trump were at a podium, &#8220;we would be correcting him.&#8221;
&#8220;If he was at a podium, we would be pressing him after he answers the question, we would be correcting him, we would be pointing out discrepancies in previous answers, and we&#8217;re not able to do that in the chaotic setting of a departure,&#8221; CBS News White House correspondent Weijia Jiang said. &#8220;Many times I&#8217;ve tried to ask a follow-up question, but he&#8217;s already pointed to somebody else.&#8221;
Aw, that&#8217;s horrible. Doesn&#8217;t the president of the United States realize that the NBC reporter is running the press conference? What a travesty!
Jiang also said the loud engines on the chopper give Trump an advantage. &#8220;He&#8217;ll just hear a word that catches his attention like &#8216;racism&#8217; or &#8216;the Squad&#8217; or whatever the topic is, and he&#8217;ll just deliver what he&#8217;s probably already been tweeting about and what he already firmly believes so that can be difficult,&#8221; she said.
But Trump&#8217;s on-the-move press conferences give reporters far more access than his predecessor gave, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-chopper-talks-reporters-criticize-accesible-accountable-marine-one-helicopter-press-secretary-grisham">Fox News</a> reports.
&#8220;According to CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, who keeps detailed records of the presidency, Trump has stopped to answer reporter questions — both departing or arriving to the White House on Marine One and on the tarmac before or after riding Air Force One — more than 80 times. He said he found only three instances when former President Barack Obama similarly spoke to reporters in transit and, during such times, he used a podium,&#8221; Fox wrote.
Reporters have had far more access to Trump — and not just on the White House lawn. &#8220;The frequent &#8216;chopper talk&#8217; is one of the reasons Trump has surpassed his five predecessors — Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan — in fielding questions from reporters during their first 30 months in office, according to the White House Transition Project. Those five presidents took questions at approximately one third of their public speaking events, while Trump does so at more than half of his,&#8221; Politico reported.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said last week that Trump is &#8220;so accessible&#8221; she can&#8217;t fathom why &#8220;what any of the press could complain about.&#8221;
&#8220;President Trump communicates directly with the American people more than any President in history,&#8221; she said. &#8220;The fact that the White House press corps can no longer grandstand on TV is of no concern to us.&#8221;
But veteran reporter Peter Baker of the New York Times also complained about the way Trump takes questions.
&#8220;There&#8217;s no question that it works to his advantage that we look unruly and disorderly,&#8221; Baker told Politico. &#8220;It&#8217;s not like standing at a podium in the East Room or the briefing room, where you can have a civilized calling on people who raise their hands.&#8221;
Baker also said reporters are forced to ask straight-forward questions. &#8220;You can&#8217;t ask a question that has a predicate or a kind of complex construction because you&#8217;re shouting with all the other reporters like &#8216;Mr. President, what about Iran?’&#8217;or &#8216;Mr. President, they say you&#8217;re a racist,'&#8221; Baker said.​
Aww, the poor White House press corps.

President Donald Trump Departs White House For Kentucky

Trump Infuriates White House Press Corps By Taking A Bunch Of Questions So Often

White House

Intersectional identity politics have officially sent the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee into &#8220;complete chaos,&#8221; according to minority congresswomen calling for some major &#8220;diversity&#8221; changes in the DCCC.
&#8220;The DCCC is now in complete chaos,&#8221; Texas Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Filemon Vela told <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/29/cheri-bustos-democrats-diversity-1438867">Politico</a> in a statement published Monday. Their problem? DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL) has not made enough strides in promoting &#8220;diversity&#8221; within the party, particularly by hiring minority candidates to replace some of the committee&#8217;s senior management.
&#8220;The single most immediate action that Cheri Bustos can take to restore confidence in the organization and to promote diversity is to appoint a qualified person of color, of which there are many, as executive director at once,&#8221; Gonzalez and Vela said.
To do so would mean that Bustos would have to fire the committee&#8217;s current executive director, Allison Jaslow.
Politico reports that in a emergency all-staff meeting on Friday, &#8220;Jaslow cried as she assumed blame for the lack of diversity in the DCCC, according to multiple people in the room.&#8221; The outlet notes that the committee&#8217;s handling of a staffer who posted tweets ten years ago that were considered derogatory toward LGBT people also came up during the &#8220;very emotional&#8221; staff meeting.
In their statement, Gonzalez and Vela expressed frustration not only with the DCCC, but also with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus for failing to sufficiently back up their protests against the Democrats&#8217; campaign arm. &#8220;We find the silence of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on this issue to be deafening,&#8221; the women said.
Politico reports that internal pressure has escalated enough to compel Bustos to make an &#8220;unplanned trip&#8221; to D.C. to address the growing &#8220;diversity&#8221; complaints coming from prominent black and Latino lawmakers who reportedly agree about the need for more represenation in significant positions.
The all-staff meeting came after Politico reported Thursday on the &#8220;long-simmering battle&#8221; between the DCCC and minority lawmakers &#8220;who believe the party committee and its chairwoman have shortchanged people of color.&#8221; Among the copmlaints are Bustos&#8217; &#8220;tone-deaf comments on race&#8221; and perceived failure to live up to campaign promises when running for her position.
Former Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) is one of the minority politicians decrying Bustos and the committee. &#8220;There is not one person of color — black or brown, that I’m aware of — at any position of authority or decision-making in the DCCC. It is shocking, it is shocking, and something needs to be done about it,&#8221; said Fudge in a comment reported by Politico Thursday.
Bustos attempted to meet with Fudge, but she says she turned Bustos down. &#8220;Until they show me they are serious about diversity, there’s no reason for me to meet with them,&#8221; she said.
Politico notes that Bustos isn&#8217;t only dealing with complaints; she&#8217;s also been hit by some notable resignations from senior aides, including her African American chief of staff.
A DCCC spokesman told Politico that Bustos is traveling to D.C. to approve some changes in the &#8220;structure&#8221; of the organization and participate in diversity and inclusion training for the committee&#8217;s employees.
&#8220;Chairwoman Bustos is coming back because she understands how important it is for her to hear from staff directly and to reassure them that we have a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion at every level,&#8221; a committee spokesman told the outlet. &#8220;She plans to approve changes to the structure before she leaves town and wants to get staff input as we work to build a stronger DCCC and make sure our team, from senior leadership on down, reflects the full range of diversity that gives the Democratic Party its strength.&#8221;
UPDATE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50046/update-diversity-chaos-takes-down-war-vet-james-barrett">‘Diversity’ ‘Chaos’ Takes Down War Vet Democratic Campaign Arm Director</a>

Minority Dems: Democratic Campaign Arm In ‘Complete Chaos’ Over Diversity Fail

Democratic Party

According to sources who spoke to The Daily Wire from both inside and outside the administration, the Trump administration will not implement any policy that allows countries to import Iranian oil — thus apparently closing the door on a <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/trump-china-iran-oil-1396052">proposal being circulated among State Department hands</a> that would have allowed China to use an obscure legal loophole to avoid U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil imports.
Last Wednesday, Eliana Johnson of Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/trump-china-iran-oil-1396052">reported a very interesting scoop</a>: &#8220;The State Department is seriously considering using an Obama-era loophole to allow China to import oil from Iran,&#8221; which would &#8220;violat[e] the Trump administration’s pledge to bring Iranian oil exports to zero.&#8221; Specifically, Johnson cited &#8220;three U.S. officials&#8221; who claimed that the U.S. is considering &#8220;granting China a waiver to a 2012 law [the Iran Freedom and Counterproliferation Act] intended to kneecap the Iranian oil industry.&#8221; The proposal would have effectively allowed China to avoid paying directly for Iranian oil while nonetheless still acquiring it.
For close observers of the Trump administration&#8217;s foreign policy and national security apparatus, this might have seemed more than a little strange. Why would this administration, which famously removed the U.S. from the harrowing capitulation to fundamentalist jihadist evil that was President Barack Obama&#8217;s Iran nuclear deal and has infamous Iran hawk John Bolton as its national security advisor, undercut the thrust of its own <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/04/29/trump-ends-waiver-grace-period-for-irans-oil-customers/">hardline Iran oil waivers policy</a> by granting an obscure legal loophole to the U.S.&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/47057/hammer-china-americas-greatest-21st-century-threat-josh-hammer">number one 21st century geopolitical threat</a>?
To be sure, Politico almost assuredly did not get the story wrong. Rather, leakers in the famously Arabist/anti-Israel State Department bureaucracy were likely candid about internal deliberations in Foggy Bottom.
But reading Johnson&#8217;s scoop, one is forced to ponder the distinct possibility that the State Department could be wildly out of line with administration officials in and around the White House national security apparatus. Sure enough, a senior Trump administration official contacted by The Daily Wire categorically ruled out implementation of any proposal that would grant the Chinese such a waiver for Iranian oil imports.
&#8220;There will be no waivers issued to any country for the import of Iranian oil, in accordance with the President’s direction,&#8221; the senior administration official stated. &#8220;Importing Iranian oil is a sanctionable activity under U.S. law. U.S. secondary sanctions will be fully enforced.&#8221;
Well.
This is what a brutal inter-agency fight looks like. Hawkish Iran hardliners in the administration are battling — quite publicly now, as of this writing&#8217;s publication — with dovish State Department mandarins.
Contacted by The Daily Wire, a U.S. official familiar with the inter-agency Trump administration battle over Iranian oil waivers put it bluntly: &#8220;The president is under enormous pressure to give Iran a face-saving off-ramp and look the other way at sanctions busting. The Europeans and their friends inside the administration are selling him the delusion that the ayatollah is ready to make a deal, if only he&#8217;ll bribe Iran with a few hundred million dollars. It hasn&#8217;t worked yet. They&#8217;re still trying.&#8221;
This will be a fascinating inter-agency fight to watch unfold. Iran hawks have a very clear rooting interest — and it is surely not with the State Department. Suffice it to say there is no world whatsoever in which China ought to be granted any waivers at all for importing Iranian oil.

HAMMER: INTER-AGENCY FIGHT: White House Closes Door On Plan To Give China ‘Get-Out-Of-Jail’ Free Card For Iran Oil

Barack Obama

Iran

John Bolton

Mike Pompeo

National Security

Nuclear Weapons

State Department

Trump Administration

For what Politico has styled &#8220;Trump&#8217;s takeover of the Fourth of July celebration,&#8221; the U.S. Military brought a couple of M1 Bradley Armored Personnel Carriers into the heart of Washington, D.C. Tuesday night, a moment HuffPost described as a &#8220;surreal scene&#8221; and footage of which has been posted online. The tanks are among the half-dozen or so military vehicles that will be included in the &#8220;Salute to America&#8221; event around the Lincoln Memorial, which will also feature the standard fireworks and flyover — and for which Trump has been decried by the Left for his &#8220;authoritarian&#8221; display of military power.
&#8220;In a surreal scene, tanks rolled into Washington D.C. on Tuesday to participate in President Donald Trump’s Independence Day event,&#8221; <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tanks-in-washington-dc_n_5d1c3ce5e4b082e55371d8b1">HuffPost</a> reported Tuesday in a piece highlighting some of the footage as well as comments by Army Col. Sunset Belinsky to a Washington-based CBS affiliate reassuring the public that there&#8217;s no need to &#8220;panic.&#8221;
&#8220;Residents of the Capitol City will see the vehicles move through their neighborhoods, but should not panic,” said Col. Belinsky. HuffPost also quotes D.C. Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton denouncing Trump for &#8220;robbing&#8221; the people of the nonpartisan celebration. &#8220;This robs us of the one holiday where everybody comes together and doesn’t even look at you to find out what your political party is,&#8221; she said.
Some of the footage of &#8220;Trump&#8217;s tanks&#8221; that&#8217;s made the rounds online:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Just left the Nats game, and we were greeted by Trump&#8217;s tanks rolling through just outside the ballpark <a href="https://twitter.com/fox5dc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@fox5dc</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/nbcwashington?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nbcwashington</a> <a href="https://t.co/O9VmDGFoMY">pic.twitter.com/O9VmDGFoMY</a>
— Cole (@eloc8) <a href="https://twitter.com/eloc8/status/1146238374203863040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">NEW — <a href="https://twitter.com/USArmy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@USArmy</a> says armored vehicles WILL move through WASHINGTON TONIGHT.
Specifically: 
Two M1 Bradley Armored Personnel Carriers.
Army spokesperson says, “you’ll see them moving through your neighborhood, but DON’T PANIC.”<a href="https://twitter.com/wusa9?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WUSA9</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SaluteToAmerica?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SaluteToAmerica</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FourthofJuly?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FourthofJuly</a> <a href="https://t.co/c9IockpNMv">pic.twitter.com/c9IockpNMv</a>
— Mike Valerio (@MikevWUSA) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikevWUSA/status/1146207474220961794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
And as is the case with so many Trump-led events, the mainstream media is uncertain about how to cover his &#8220;takeover&#8221; of the Fourth. <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/02/trump-july-4-event-tv-1395474">Politico</a> provides a rundown of how the networks plan to approach it, most notably MSNBC, which is considering effectively blacking it out.
&#8220;President Donald Trump’s takeover of the Fourth of July celebration at the National Mall won’t completely take over the cable airwaves,&#8221; Politico reports. &#8220;MSNBC, for one, doesn’t plan to carry his “Salute to America” live, though the network will assess in real time whether to air clips of the event, a spokesperson told POLITICO.&#8221;
While MSNBC appears to be leaning toward acting like the event isn&#8217;t happening, Fox News is planning to dedicate a couple of hours to the event in a two-hour edition of &#8220;Special Report,&#8221; Politico notes.
The other cable news outlet, CNN, meanwhile, just happens to be airing a special on the rise of white nationalism starting at 7 p.m., in what some might consider a curious choice for July 4th programming.
ABC News will air the &#8220;Salute to America&#8221; on its streaming channel ABC News Live, as will CBS on CBSN and NBC on NBC News NOW. CSPAN will likewise be streaming the event.
<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/everything-you-wanted-know-about-trump-s-july-fourth-celebration-n1025606">NBC News</a>, which has covered the event with a little less slant online, provides a summary of what to expect: &#8220;Tanks. Troops. The president. The Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps, the U.S. Army Band, the Armed Forces Chorus, the U.S. Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon, and the U.S. Navy Blue Angels are all part of the program.&#8221;
NBC quotes Trump about the need to be &#8220;pretty careful&#8221; with the tanks, but not because of a fear of &#8220;panic&#8221;: &#8220;We gotta be pretty careful with the tanks because the roads have a tendency not to like to carry heavy tanks, so we have to put them in certain areas,&#8221; he said.
Unlike Norton and her fellow Democrats, Trump is amped up about the event. &#8220;Big 4th of July in D.C. &#8216;Salute to America.'&#8221; he tweeted Tuesday. &#8220;The Pentagon &amp; our great Military Leaders are thrilled to be doing this &amp; showing to the American people, among other things, the strongest and most advanced Military anywhere in the World. Incredible Flyovers &amp; biggest ever Fireworks!&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Big 4th of July in D.C. “Salute to America.” The Pentagon &amp; our great Military Leaders are thrilled to be doing this &amp; showing to the American people, among other things, the strongest and most advanced Military anywhere in the World. Incredible Flyovers &amp; biggest ever Fireworks!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1146062242388959238?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

WATCH: ‘Trump’s Tanks’ Arrive In Washington For July 4th; MSNBC Considers Blackout

ABC News

Fox News

Huffington Post

Military

MSNBC

NBC News

Mayor Pete&#8217;s identity politics may not be making the splash he hoped for among the LGBT elite, who are beginning to doubt whether he can win the Democratic nomination &#8212; much less beat President Trump in 2020.
According to a report in <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/20/in-hollywood-lgbtq-donors-like-buttigiegbut-theyre-keeping-their-options-open-227161">Politico</a>, Hollywood&#8217;s top LGBT donors have not really warmed up yet to the junior politician. Though producer Ryan Murphy had originally scheduled an epic fundraiser at his home, with tickets costing $1,500 per person, the event has now been postponed due to the South Bend mayor having to temporarily pause his campaign activities to tend to a police officer-involved shooting death in his city.
&#8220;There&#8217;s a reason this group was so eager to meet Mayor Pete. For many of these influential donors, this will be their first ever chance to contribute to a viable gay presidential candidate,&#8221; reports Politico. &#8220;But some well-known LGBTQ donors in Hollywood offer a picture that that&#8217;s more nuanced: Many in showbiz are still keeping their options open.&#8221;
&#8220;As historic as Buttigieg&#8217;s candidacy might be, a number of Hollywood&#8217;s most prolific LGBTQ donors aren&#8217;t ready to commit to him exclusively just yet,&#8221; the report continued. &#8220;Many of Hollywood&#8217;s influential base of bundlers and donors are backing multiple candidates, spreading their money around, contributing to other politicians with whom they have longtime relationships and who have their own long track record on LGBTQ issues, like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.&#8221;
None of that means the Hollywood LGBT donors do not feel enthusiastic about Buttigieg&#8217;s candidacy. In fact, some think he has quite a future ahead of him and are impressed by the way he answers difficult questions without seeming inauthentic. The issue hinges, instead, on whether or not he can actually deliver a victory by increasing black voter support and winning over swing states.
&#8220;If he can&#8217;t figure that out, that is a trouble spot in his campaign,&#8221; one donor told Politico.
&#8220;A lot of folks are investing beyond 2020 in Pete Buttigieg,&#8221; said another donor.
&#8220;Milk&#8221; screenwriter Dustin Lance Black told the outlet he personally met with Buttigieg this past May and came away confident in his belief that the openly gay candidate had qualities similar to Harvey Milk, including his ability to unite the LGBT community with working-class people.
&#8220;Black said that Buttigieg has &#8216;very similar instincts&#8217; as Milk, and he plans to host a fundraising event for him,&#8221; reports the outlet. &#8220;Buttigieg&#8217;s candidacy, Black told me, &#8216;sends an incredible message that there&#8217;s nothing you can&#8217;t achieve as an openly gay person,&#8217; he says. But, Black says, that doesn&#8217;t mean he&#8217;s decided that he&#8217;s voting for Buttigieg. &#8216;I haven&#8217;t and I won&#8217;t for some time decide on who I will vote for in the primaries,&#8217; he said.&#8221;
While Democratic donors have largely heaped praise upon Buttigieg, his presence in the field has not prevented them from heaping similar praise on other candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA). In fact, producer Ryan Murphy held a similar fundraiser at his home for Harris.

REPORT: Hollywood’s Top Gay Donors Doubt Buttigieg’s 2020 Chances

2020 Election

Hollywood

LGBT

Pete Buttigieg

Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that President Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia in 2016, but that&#8217;s not the end of the story.
Astute watchers of the Russia collusion delusion know that the Obama administration used thinly-sourced information and lame justifications for obtaining a warrant to spy on one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The efforts that led to the spying (or surveilling, or eavesdropping, depending on which media outlet you&#8217;re reading) have been under investigation for the past year by the Department of Justice&#8217;s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.
The results of the Horowitz investigation may be incredibly damaging for the Obama administration and anti-Trump pundits and politicians. We may now see left-wing media outlets turn their attention toward discrediting Horowitz and his report before it&#8217;s released. The opening salvo has already <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/17/mueller-report-steele-justice-department-1280578">appeared in Politico</a>.
In an article about the Horowitz probe, reporter Natasha Bertrand &#8212; a collusion truther &#8212; went to great lengths to claim the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that granted the warrant to spy on Page routinely accepts applications that aren&#8217;t verified.
&#8220;Former U.S. officials interviewed by the inspector general were skeptical about the quality of his probe,&#8221; Bertrand wrote. &#8220;They emphasized to Horowitz that information in a warrant application need not be wholly verified, as long as the reliability of the source of the information is disclosed to the court, which<a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-justice-department-releases-carter-page-fisa-application" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> the FBI did in the Page FISA case</a> with regard to Steele. But the inspector general seemed neither well-versed in the FISA process nor receptive to the explanations, the officials said.&#8221;
First, here we have anonymous, &#8220;former U.S. officials&#8221; expressing skepticism over the probe. Former officials could mean any administration, but if they&#8217;re from the Obama administration &#8212; which sought the warrant against Page &#8212; of course they would suggest Horowitz&#8217;s probe isn&#8217;t credible.
Just before this paragraph, Bertrand explained why Christopher Steele &#8212; the ex-British Intelligence official who created a &#8220;dossier&#8221; that alleged Russian collusion with the Trump 2016 campaign &#8212; was a reliable source. Steele had previously &#8220;helped&#8221; the FBI investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer league. But she acknowledged that Horowitz&#8217;s office &#8220;concluded that Steele inflated his worth to the bureau in that case, and did little more than introduce agents to a journalist who had obtained hacked documents, according to two people who were interviewed and briefed on the matter.&#8221;
More anonymous sources, of course. Bertrand&#8217;s main point in the article is that Horowitz&#8217;s probe will cast doubt on the Steele dossier &#8212; which has already been proven to be wholly unreliable based on Mueller&#8217;s report, which was released after the Politico article was published.
But she goes on to defend Steele&#8217;s involvement.
With the Mueller report destroying the media&#8217;s two-year Russia collusion narrative, expect the Inspector General&#8217;s report to condemn the people who created the narrative by spying on a U.S. citizen and political campaign. That&#8217;s going to hurt a lot of egos in the left-wing media, who continue to insist Trump is the bad guy and Democrats are the good guys.

Expect The Media To Turn Its Attention To Discrediting Michael Horowitz Before Inspector General Report Released

Robert Mueller

Russia

Earlier this week, two Politico reporters wrote an article claiming President Donald Trump acted &#8220;truly bizarre&#8221; during a visit to George Washington&#8217;s home, Mount Vernon, last April.
The Politico article, like so many &#8220;news&#8221; stories in the Trump era, was based on anonymous &#8220;sources&#8221; either &#8220;briefed on&#8221; or &#8220;familiar with&#8221; the visit. No one who was actually present had anything to say, apparently.
The article claimed that Trump was &#8220;disinterested&#8221; in learning about America&#8217;s first president, and that Mount Vernon president and CEO Doug Bradburn &#8220;was desperately trying to get [Trump] interested in&#8221; the property, using terms that would appeal to Trump, such as telling him Washington bought property throughout Virginia.
Further, Trump &#8212; according to anonymous sources who weren&#8217;t there &#8212; allegedly pointed out flaws in the home and said he could build one better. He also apparently said Washington should have put his name on the house.
&#8220;If he was smart, he would&#8217;ve put his name on it,&#8221; Politico claimed Trump said. &#8220;You&#8217;ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.&#8221;
The visit, which included Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, and French First Lady Brigitte Macron, was organized by the Mount Vernon Ladies&#8217; Association. After the Politico article was published, the association <a href="https://www.mountvernon.org/about/news/article/statement-from-the-mount-vernon-ladies-association-about-the-trump-macron-visit/">released a statement</a> denying its premise:
<blockquote>
Mount Vernon has a firm, long-standing policy of not commenting on the details of high-profile visits to the home of George Washington. However, we believe in the importance of ensuring that reports about events that take place at Mount Vernon are accurate. As such, we are concerned that the third-party accounts of the Trump-Macron visit released by several media outlets today do not correctly reflect the events that transpired nearly a year ago.
</blockquote>
The statement continued, saying Bradburn and Regent Sarah Coulson conducted the tour and that &#8220;all parties were interested and engaged in the story of George Washington and his beloved home.&#8221; The statement said the group discussed many issues, including real estate and business dealings, that each party found interesting.
Both Trump and Macron, according to the statement, asked questions &#8220;with curiosity and respect.&#8221;
&#8220;Comments pulled from sources who were not present for the tour do not properly convey the tone and context in which they were delivered,&#8221; the statement said.
Politico included the statement at the bottom of its article, but there is no editor&#8217;s note and the story&#8217;s central premise remains. As with many articles regarding Trump, the story is written from the angle pushed by the anonymous sources, while the only on-the-record statement is included merely as a courtesy.
Oh, but don&#8217;t worry, Politico sought out a historian to bash the president based on what the anonymous sources said. True journalism.
As Matt Vespa of Townhall wrote in a post about the latest stumble from the left-wing media, &#8220;How many times will the liberal media have to endure getting hit in the face with their shoddy reporting about the Trump White House?&#8221;
The answer, sadly, is unknown. No matter how many times these publications post anti-Trump articles from anonymous sources that don&#8217;t pan out, they&#8217;ll keep doing it, because more people will read the original article than any of the corrections.

Media Claimed Trump Acted Inappropriately While Touring George Washington’s Home. Mount Vernon Officials Just Set The Record Straight.

In a curious sequence of events Monday that has gained the attention of some folks online, Facebook temporarily pulled some ads placed by Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA) on Friday calling for the breakup of tech giants, including Facebook, which has acquired Instagram and WhatsApp.
After scrutiny, particularly by <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/11/facebook-removes-elizabeth-warren-ads-1216757">Politico</a>, Facebook restored the Warren ads Monday and issued a statement saying the ads violated their advertising policies and they were only restoring them for the sake of encouraging &#8220;robust debate.&#8221;
&#8220;Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and Google,&#8221; read Warren&#8217;s temporarily pulled campaign ads. &#8220;We all use them. But in their rise to power, they&#8217;ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor.&#8221;
The ads promoted the progressive senator&#8217;s new plan announced in a Team Warren blog post Friday which declares: &#8220;<a href="https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c">It&#8217;s time to breakup Amazon, Google, and Facebook.</a>&#8221; In an example of &#8220;Using Mergers to Limit Competition,&#8221; Warren writes, &#8220;Facebook has purchased potential competitors Instagram and WhatsApp.&#8221; She also specifically calls out Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg:
<blockquote>
Weak antitrust enforcement has led to a dramatic reduction in competition and innovation in the tech sector. Venture capitalists are now hesitant to fund new startups to compete with these big tech companies because it&#8217;s so easy for the big companies to either snap up growing competitors or drive them out of business. The number of tech startups has slumped, there are fewer high-growth young firms typical of the tech industry, and first financing rounds for tech startups have declined 22% since 2012.
With fewer competitors entering the market, the big tech companies do not have to compete as aggressively in key areas like protecting our privacy. And some of these companies have grown so powerful that they can bully cities and states into showering them with massive taxpayer handouts in exchange for doing business, and can act&#8202;&#8212;&#8202;in the words of Mark Zuckerberg&#8202;&#8212;&#8202;&#8220;more like a government than a traditional company.&#8221;
</blockquote>
But, Politico notes, the ads were soon scrubbed and replaced with a message: &#8220;This ad was taken down because it goes against Facebook&#8217;s advertising policies.&#8221;
After Politico reported the &#8220;takedown&#8221; on Monday, Facebook quickly reversed course, restoring the ads. A spokesperson told the outlet the only reason the ads were removed is because they violated the platform&#8217;s policies by using their corporate logo.
&#8220;We removed the ads because they violated our policies against use of our corporate logo,&#8221; the spokesperson told Politico. &#8220;In the interest of allowing robust debate, we are restoring the ads.&#8221;
Politico notes that over a dozen other ads by Warren about her &#8220;big tech breakup&#8221; proposal weren&#8217;t pulled.
Facebook &#8220;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/policies/ads/use_of_brand_assets/brand_reference">Brand Usage in Ads</a>&#8221; policy states: &#8220;Don&#8217;t use the Facebook corporate logo in an ad. The logo is reserved for corporate use.&#8221; Here&#8217;s the full policy statement:
<blockquote>
Ads linking to Facebook or Instagram content (including Pages, groups, events or sites that use Facebook Login) may make limited reference to &#8220;Facebook&#8221; or &#8220;Instagram&#8221; in ad text for the purpose of clarifying the destination of the ad.
Ads should not represent the Facebook brand in a way that makes it the most distinctive or prominent feature of the creative.
Facebook brand assets should not be modified in any way, such as by changing the design or color, or for the purpose of special effects or animation.
Examples
<ul>
<li>Do always display the word &#8220;Facebook&#8221; in the same font size and style as the text surrounding it</li>
<li>Do always capitalize the word &#8220;Facebook&#8221;, except when it&#8217;s part of a web address</li>
<li>Don&#8217;t pluralize the Facebook trademark, abbreviate it as &#8220;FB&#8221; or use it as a verb</li>
<li>Don&#8217;t use the &#8220;f&#8221; or Facebook logos in place of the word &#8220;Facebook&#8221; in ad copy</li>
<li>Don&#8217;t use the Facebook corporate logo in an ad. The logo is reserved for corporate use</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
&#8203;Below is Warren talking with CNN about her big &#8220;breakup&#8221; plan in a video posted on Facebook:
<div class="embed"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe></div>

Facebook Removes Elizabeth Warren Ads, Then Restores Them After Outcry

Elizabeth Warren

Facebook

On Friday, <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/08/ilhan-omar-dean-phillips-minnesota-democratic-party-225696">Politico Magazine quoted</a> Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as suggesting President Barack Obama was a murderer for the &#8220;droning of countries around the world&#8221; and that just because someone is more &#8220;polished&#8221; than President Donald Trump doesn&#8217;t excuse their bad policies.
After the article was published, Omar claimed her quote was taken out of context. So, she uploaded audio of the interview. The full context proved Politico&#8217;s Tim Alberta quoted her accurately.
Alberta wrote the following paragraph regarding his conversation with Omar regarding Obama:
<blockquote>
As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the &#8220;hope and change&#8221; offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the &#8220;caging of kids&#8221; at the U.S.-Mexico border and the &#8220;droning of countries around the world&#8221; on Obama&#8217;s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor.
</blockquote>
Alberta then quotes Omar directly:
<blockquote>
&#8220;We can&#8217;t be only upset with Trump. &#8230; His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was,&#8221; Omar says. &#8220;And that&#8217;s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don&#8217;t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Omar pushed back against Alberta&#8217;s reporting, sharing her dismay on Twitter.
&#8220;Exhibit A of how reporters distort words. I&#8217;m an Obama fan! I was saying how [President] Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy not politics,&#8221; Omar said in a now-deleted tweet.
She also posted audio of her interview, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-controversy-rep-ilhan-omar-criticism-president-obama/story?id=61564148">which completely backed up Alberta&#8217;s reporting</a>.
&#8220;You know I will talk about the family separation or caging of kids and people will point out that this was Trump &#8212; I mean this was Obama. I mean I&#8217;ll say something about the droning of countries around the world and people will say that was Obama. And all of that is very true,&#8221; Omar said in her own audio recording.
&#8220;We can&#8217;t be only upset with Trump because he&#8217;s not a politician who sells us his policies in the most perfect way. His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was, and that&#8217;s not what we should be looking for anymore,&#8221; Omar went on to say. &#8220;We don&#8217;t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished, we want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile so that we can understand the kind of negative impact, or positive impact they will have on us for generations to come.&#8221;
Alberta then took to his own Twitter account to respond to Omar.
&#8220;Exhibit A of how politicians use the media as a straw man to avoid owning what they said,&#8221; he tweeted. &#8220;Your tape&#8230;supports what I wrote 100%. So does my longer tape. It&#8217;s beyond dispute.&#8221;
&#8220;Next time, a phone call from your office before the Twitter ambush would be appreciated,&#8221; he added.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Exhibit A of how politicians use the media as a straw man to avoid owning what they said.
Your tape&#8230;supports what I wrote 100%. So does my longer tape. It&#8217;s beyond dispute.
Next time, a phone call from your office before the Twitter ambush would be appreciated. <a href="https://t.co/eb2grgn5Cd">https://t.co/eb2grgn5Cd</a>
&#8212; Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimAlberta/status/1104161797274324992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Alberta then retweeted Huffington Post reporter Travis Waldron, who said: &#8220;The weird thing about Omar taking issue with Politico&#8217;s accurate and contextual quoting of her is that an honest reading of what she said read not like a criticism of Obama necessarily but of the American presidency and the limited framework in which it exists &amp; is evaluated.&#8221;

Ilhan Omar Says Her ‘Obama’ Quote Was Taken Out Of Context And Posts Audio Evidence. It Proves The Opposite.

Ilhan Omar

In a piece for <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/07/trump-ilhan-omar-1211798">Politico</a> Thursday, Eliana Johnson and Melanie Zanona warn Democrats that freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar is playing right into President Trump&#8217;s hands, and helping make what was once a &#8220;happily united&#8221; Democratic Party a bit more &#8220;complicated.&#8221;
&#8220;She snidely refers to him as &#8216;Individual 1.&#8217; She has denounced him for &#8216;sabotaging the economy.&#8217; And she has accused him of engaging in &#8216;dehumanizing rhetoric,&#8221; Johnson and Zanona write. &#8220;But this week, freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) has been President Donald Trump&#8217;s dream come true.&#8221;
Trump should be getting beat up by the press over his &#8220;failed North Korea summit&#8221; and convicted felon and admitted liar Michael Cohen&#8217;s &#8220;scathing testimony,&#8221; they suggest; instead, Omar&#8217;s anti-Semitic comments have &#8220;consumed the political headlines&#8221; over the last week, &#8220;giving Democratic lawmakers a taste of the scandal and controversy that has dogged Republicans for the past two years.&#8221;
Omar&#8217;s insistence on repeatedly pushing anti-Semitic, conspiratorial comments about pro-Israel politicians&#8217; &#8220;dual loyalty&#8221; and &#8220;allegiance to a foreign country,&#8221; as well as the supposed insidious influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee AIPAC, has forced Democrats to take action &#8212; and prompted an internal battle over how much to single out Omar and anti-Semitism.
The Democratic leadership eventually caved to the party&#8217;s more radical elements Thursday and issued a <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190304/BILLS-116hres183-SUSv1.pdf">resolution</a> that does not name Omar at all and waters down the condemnation of anti-Semitism by including a long list of forms of bigotry, particularly anti-Muslim bigotry, which the resolution actually couples with anti-Semitism in its opening clause:
<blockquote>
Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.
</blockquote>
The fissures within the party that revealed themselves over the course of the week, Politico predicts, will not be mended &#8220;anytime soon.&#8221;
&#8220;[V]ictory in the 2018 midterm elections, which delivered Democrats control of the House chamber, is already spotlighting cleavages within the party &#8212; including on the subject of Israel &#8212; that have gotten scant attention over the past two years,&#8221; Johnson and Zanona note. &#8220;While Omar&#8217;s remarks may fade from the headlines, there&#8217;s little reason to think Democrats will finish arguing among themselves anytime soon.&#8221;
Though it was supposed to be a rebuke of her own comments, Omar ended up claiming victory on Thursday by emphasizing the resolution&#8217;s condemnation of bigotry against Muslims. In a joint statement with fellow freshman Muslim congresswoman and radical Democrat Rashida Tlaib and Andre Carson, Omar led by celebrating the resolution&#8217;s condemnation of &#8220;Anti-Muslim bigotry.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet"></div>
&#8220;Today is historic on many fronts. It&#8217;s the first time we have voted on a resolution condemning Anti-Muslim bigotry in our nation&#8217;s history. Anti-Muslim crimes have increased 99% from 2014-2016 and are still on the rise,&#8221; they stated. &#8220;We are tremendously proud to be a part of a body that has put forth a condemnation of all forms of bigotry including anti-Semitism, racism, and white supremacy. At a time when extremism is on the rise, we must expliciatly renounce religious intolerance of all kinds and acknowledge the pain felt by all communities. Our nation is having a difficult conversation and we believe this is great progress.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Our nation is having a difficult conversation, but we believe this is great progress. <a href="https://t.co/gSua9a8mki">pic.twitter.com/gSua9a8mki</a>
&#8212; Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ilhan/status/1103804261824114688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Politico: Ilhan Omar Is Trump’s ‘Dream Come True’

Anti-Semitism

Rashida Tlaib

Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders &#8220;is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party,&#8221; Miami Democratic Congresswoman Donna Shalala declared Thursday, echoing the sentiment of many Florida Democrats, after the presidential candidate refused to denounce Venezuala&#8217;s Nicolas Maduro as a dictator or affirm Juan Guaidó as the country&#8217;s legitimate interim leader.
Asked directly by Univsion&#8217;s Jorge Ramos in an interview Tuesday if he believes Maduro is a dictator and should &#8220;go,&#8221; Sanders glaringly hedged. &#8220;Is Nicolas Maduro a dictator, Senator, for you? And should he go?&#8221; asked Ramos.
&#8220;I think clearly he has been very, very abusive,&#8221; Sanders replied. &#8220;That is a decision of the Venezuelan people. So I think, Jorge, there&#8217;s got to be a free and fair election.&#8221;
Sanders then turned the conversation into a condemnation of America&#8217;s past actions in Latin America: &#8220;But what must not happen is that the United States must not use military force and intervene again as it has done in the past in Latin America, as you recall, whether it was Chile or Brazil or the Dominican Republic or Guatemala,&#8221; said the democratic socialist. &#8220;The United States has a very bad record of intervening in Latin American countries. That must not happen again. The future of Venezuela must be left to the Venezuelan people.&#8221;
Asked if he would recognize Guaidó as the interim leader of the country, Sanders said, &#8220;No.&#8221; He then vaguely mentioned &#8220;serious questions&#8221; about the legitimacy of the election that resulted in dictator Maduro maintaining power. &#8220;There are many people who feel it was a fraudulent election,&#8221; said the senator, refusing to specifiy if he is among those &#8220;many people.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s a clip of the moment from the interview, followed by the full interview (comments start around the 12-minute mark in full video):
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) refused to call for Nicolás Maduro to step down and did not recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela&#8217;s leader during an interview with Jorge Ramos. <a href="https://t.co/dVZ5CK5N3P">pic.twitter.com/dVZ5CK5N3P</a>
&#8212; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1098610844299153408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/shsN_4cyraM" width="853"></iframe></div>
For many Miami Democrats, Sanders just disqualified himself from representing their party in the presidential election. One of their major concerns, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636">Politico</a> stresses, is that comments like Sanders&#8217; from Democratic leaders might play right into Trump&#8217;s hands as he has taken the lead internationally on condemning Maduro and backing Guaidó as Venezuela&#8217;s legitimate leader. Democrats fear that Trump may even be able to win over some of the Hispanic vote on the issue.
Among the voices condemning the Vermont senator is Rep. Shalala, who has recently filed legislation to help Venezuelans fleeing Maduro&#8217;s iron-fisted socialist regime and the economic crisis his socialist policies have engendered.
&#8220;He is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. He has demonstrated again that he does not understand this situation,&#8221; Shalala told Politico. &#8220;I absolutely disagree with his imprecision in not saying Maduro must go.&#8221;
Democratic State Sen. Annette Taddeo (Miami) said she was &#8220;dumbfounded&#8221; by Sanders&#8217; response, Politico reports. &#8220;He&#8217;s obviously clueless,&#8221; she said, questioning if he&#8217;s been fully briefed on the situation.
&#8220;Helena Poleo, a Democrat who&#8217;s a former journalist from Venezuela and is a Spanish-language commentator, called Sanders comments &#8216;disgusting. The Florida Democratic Party needs to denounce this now,'&#8221; Politico reports.
The Democratic Party of Florida has also issued an &#8220;unequivocal&#8221; statemement that, while not naming Sanders, directly counters his comments: &#8220;Florida Democrats have been unequivocal: We recognize Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela, denounce the legitimacy of the Maduro regime and his efforts to remain illegally in power,&#8221; the party said in a statement. (Read <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/21/bernie-sanders-venezuela-maduro-1179636">Politico</a>&#8216;s full report here.)

Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43796/hammer-bernie-sanders-entire-worldview-grotesquely-josh-hammer">HAMMER: Bernie Sanders&#8217; Entire Worldview Is Grotesquely Immoral And Evil</a>

WATCH: Here’s The Bernie Sanders Interview That Has FL Democrats Declaring ‘He Is Not Going To Be The Nominee’

Bernie Sanders

Socialism

Venezuela

On Thursday, amid much hype and fanfare, freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the &#8220;future&#8221; of the Democratic Party, unveiled her &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43194/aocs-green-new-deal-proposal-one-stupidest-ben-shapiro">Green New Deal</a>&#8221; &#8212; and even the sympathetic media had a hard time figuring out how to report its proposals without opening up the self-described democratic socialist congresswoman to derision due to the plan&#8217;s goals of eliminating all use of fossil fuels, including natural gas, in ten years, creating so many high-speed railways that we can abolish planes, giving every American a job with a livable wage and &#8220;financial security&#8221; for those &#8220;unwilling to work,&#8221; &#8212; oh yeah, and abolishing &#8220;farting cows&#8221; (actual quote).
In a piece titled &#8220;<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-224928">The Impossible Green Dream of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a>,&#8221; Politico&#8217;s Michael Grunwald offers his best attempt at a defense of the freshman Democrat&#8217;s highly anticipated, stunningly naive document. While Grunwald does acknowledge that all of her major proposals are, simply put, &#8220;impossible,&#8221; he says that &#8220;none of that matters.&#8221;
&#8220;Let&#8217;s get real: The United States is not going to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions in 10 years, the key goal of the Green New Deal resolution that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) unveiled Thursday,&#8221; Grunwald writes. &#8220;More real talk: America won&#8217;t get 100 percent of its power from zero-emissions sources within a decade, either, another audacious Green New Deal goal. And we&#8217;re not going to upgrade the energy efficiency of every single building in the country, as the resolution proposes. If we were getting all our energy from zero-emissions sources, it wouldn&#8217;t even make sense to try.&#8221;
Then he gets to the premise of his attempt to defend the embattled Democrat darling: &#8220;But here&#8217;s one more reality check: None of that really matters.&#8221;
Grunwald portrays the Green New Deal and AOC as a victim of an unfair &#8220;barrage of skepticism&#8221; from &#8220;well-intentioned fact-checkers, badly intentioned climate trolls, and desperate-to-look-savvy pundits, all focusing on the logistical and political impossibilities of transforming the economy as rapidly as the Green New Deal envisions.&#8221; The only problem is, he admits, &#8220;they&#8217;re right.&#8221;
&#8220;And they&#8217;re right: Its goals really do seem impossible to achieve,&#8221; he writes, now qualifying his unqualified &#8220;impossible&#8221; headline. &#8220;But they&#8217;re all missing the point. If anything, they&#8217;re helping the Green New Deal&#8217;s backers to make their point, which is that climate change is an unprecedented emergency that requires unprecedented action, so America needs to try to do seemingly impossible things.&#8221;
But what&#8217;s the point of doing something that&#8217;s impossible? Grunwald insists that, while &#8220;seemingly&#8221; impossible, the much-mocked document really is useful because it serves as &#8220;a political manifesto, a messaging device designed to commit the Democratic Party to treating the climate crisis like a real crisis, pressuring its presidential candidates to support radical transformation of the fossil-fueled economy.&#8221;
He also maintains that the &#8220;seemingly&#8221; impossible proposal also serves as &#8220;a policy proposal &#8212; or at least a sketch of one, a way to launch a substantive debate over how Democrats will attack the crisis if they do regain the White House.&#8221;
If the Green New Deal is even the &#8220;sketch&#8221; of how the Democrats propose to &#8220;attack&#8221; global warming, then there truly is no hope left for the party.
Grunwald goes on to try to convince the reader that the proposal is &#8220;much less radical&#8221; than it&#8217;s being described, but then admits its underlying assumption is this utterly socialist and unfounded premise: &#8220;The underlying philosophy of the Green New Deal is that only the power of government can create the revolutionary change that&#8217;s needed, just as the green investments in President Barack Obama&#8217;s 2009 stimulus bill helped jump-start the revolution.&#8221;
Along with the whole &#8220;impossible&#8221; thing, Grunwald does acknowledge another glaring problem with the GND: &#8220;by converting the Green New Deal into a catch-all left-wing wish list, its supporters are undermining their argument that climate is a unique emergency.&#8221; Translation: It too openly reveals that the climate change agenda is really about replacing capitalism with socialism.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43217/limbaugh-ocasio-cortez-and-her-green-new-deal-just-james-barrett">Limbaugh: Ocasio-Cortez And Her &#8216;Green New Deal&#8217; Just Blew The Lid Off Leftism</a>

Politico Tries To Defend Ocasio-Cortez: Doesn’t Matter That Her Proposals Are ‘Impossible’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Climate Change

Global Warming

Michael Knowles fact-checks the fact-checkers on Thursday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show.&#8221;
Politico had a great one. Politico&#8217;s State of the Union Fact Check: Trump said &#8220;One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north. That&#8217;s partly true. Here&#8217;s the full story.&#8221; OK. Do you know why President Trump said one in three women are raped or sexually assaulted on the journey across that border? Now the reason that they say it&#8217;s only partially true is because the real number, according to a Doctors Without Borders study, shows that it&#8217;s only 31%. Oh, they got him now &#8212; President Trump that liar! That liar said that 33% of women are raped and sexually assaulted on the journey north. Really it&#8217;s only 31 &#8212; boom. Fact Check. Fact Check, Donald. Fake news, alternative facts.
By the way, what&#8217;s funny about this is that this is just one &#8220;Doctors Without Borders&#8221; study. There are other studies that show that the number is much, much higher. Between 60 and 80% of women are raped and sexually assaulted. That&#8217;s according to Amnesty International. That&#8217;s according to a Fusion survey, both of which were reported in The Huffington Post, a left-wing outlet. So actually, President Trump probably could have used those numbers and it would have been just fine. But how disingenuous, how dishonest, he said it was one in three &#8212; liar! It was only 31%. They&#8217;re just trying to nip it. Anything he said. And even if he doesn&#8217;t lie, even if he doesn&#8217;t say something that&#8217;s even slightly untrue, they&#8217;ll just pretend that it&#8217;s untrue.
If I say one in three. First of all &#8212; just to use the phrase &#8220;one in three&#8221; is to say I&#8217;m not using a precise percentage right now. If I said the number was 35%, he also probably would have said one in three. It&#8217;s just easier to say, it sounds better, it&#8217;s better rhetoric. If that number said 35%, I bet the president still would have said: &#8220;one in three women are raped or sexually assaulted crossing that border.&#8221; But of course then, in that case, Politico would not have fact-checked it because it would have been even more in the favor of President Trump&#8217;s argument.
CBS, I think, possibly has the most egregious of the fact checks here. They say President Trump claims nearly five million people have been lifted off of food stamps. But then what CBS points out is that, as of last September, the number of people off of food stamps since the beginning of Trump&#8217;s presidency was only 4.1 million. Now, of course, that was five months ago, and the number keeps increasing, but they say &#8220;data for the fourth quarter of 2018 has not yet been published. And that number had already been trending downward before Mr. Trump took office.&#8221; So OK. So, they&#8217;re saying the numbers trending downward. So the number of people off of food stamps is trending upward. You&#8217;re saying that five months ago it was four point one million. So now who knows what that number is? It&#8217;s probably significantly higher. You might say it&#8217;s nearly 5 million. And then the kicker is they&#8217;re doing the same fact check thing that NPR did.
&#8220;And that number had already been trending downward before Mr. Trump took office.&#8221; Oh yeah, he didn&#8217;t say that it wasn&#8217;t. When did President Trump ever say that the number wasn&#8217;t trending down or that it was trending upward? When? I never heard him say that. Millions and millions of people are off of food stamps. But the fact checkers are just saying: &#8220;I hate him and he&#8217;s a big meanie and I hate him.&#8221;
Watch the video below:
<div>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZKBdTO2e4Gk" width="480"></iframe></div>

</div>

KNOWLES: Fact-Checking The Fact-Checkers

Media

Michael Knowles

Politico, in its fervent desire to impale President Trump on his own rhetorical spear, offered the transcript of the president&#8217;s State of the Union address <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-state-of-the-union-2019-live-fact-check-transcript-2/5/19/">along with commentary </a>from its own reporters as they fact-checked the president. The text of the speech was highlighted when Politico thought there was an inconsistency or false statement, and below was the fact-check or criticism.
But Politico&#8217;s sense of what constituted a fact-check seemed to be a tad overwrought in at least one case. Politico highlighted this from the president as he spoke about the migrant caravans headed for the U.S.: &#8220;One in three women is sexually assaulted on the long journey north.&#8221;
Politico commented:
<blockquote>
A <a href="https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/msf_forced-to-flee-central-americas-northern-triangle.pdf">2017 report</a> by Doctors Without Borders found 31 percent of female migrants and 17 percent of male migrants said they had been sexually abused while traveling through Mexico. For the report, the medical organization randomly surveyed 467 migrants in shelters that it supports in Mexico &#8212; what it called &#8220;a snapshot in time&#8221; based on the population available in the selected facilities.
</blockquote>
Okay, let&#8217;s figure here. One in three women would make it &#8230;. 33.33%. And Politico was targeting the president because the actual figure was 31%.
That kind of picayune thinking is representative of why some sites have to battle for their credibility.
After the president segued to the abortion issue, he stated:
<blockquote>
There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother&#8217;s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother&#8217;s womb.
</blockquote>
Politico tried to put a political spin on those remarks, writing, &#8220;Trump told aides ahead of his speech tonight that he saw an opening to reconnect with evangelical voters after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a new abortion bill into law last month. Some White House officials believe that addressing this issue may help Trump with moderate voters, too.&#8221;
And Politico tried to minimize the horror of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam&#8217;s comments in which he indicated he would not be opposed to a mother who decided to let her baby die after it was born. Politico wrote that such comments were &#8220;eye-catching&#8221;:
<blockquote>
Trump is referencing the controversy over Virginia Democrats&#8217; abortion legislation, which has sparked protests and put pressure on Gov. Ralph Northam &#8212; who supports the bill and made eye-catching comments about &#8220;nonviable&#8221; babies.
</blockquote>
It does seem as if Politico has an ax to grind, whether the president is correct or not.

Menu