Fox News host Tucker Carlson attacked the Heritage Foundation on Friday night, claiming that it &#8220;no longer represents the interests of conservatives&#8221; on the issue of big tech – a claim that was met by strong push back from the Heritage Foundation.
Carlson made the remarks in a segment about &#8220;how Google, Facebook, and Twitter work in secret to impose a left-wing political agenda on this country.&#8221; Carlson cited multiple documented examples of things that big tech companies have done that clearly work against those who are conservative.
Carlson, a few minutes later, transitioned into why he thinks Congress does not act and push back against the tech companies for their bias against conservatives.
Here are the relevant remarks from Carlson where he attacks the Heritage Foundation:
<blockquote>Why all the inaction on these questions? Well, a big part of the problem is that conservative nonprofits here in Washington, the ones that are supposed to be looking out for you, aren’t actually looking out for you. They’re looking out for big tech. A new report from The Campaign For Accountability obtained by this show highlights how conservative organizations in D.C. have colluded with big tech to shield left-wing monopolies from any oversight at all. It’s an amazing story and it’s happening now.
&#8230;
In all, the Koch network quietly spent at least $10 million defending Silicon Valley companies that work to silence conservatives. The richest companies in the world being defended by a “conservative” nonprofit as they attack conservatives. Why are they doing this? As one former Koch employee recently told this show off the record, “I know for a fact they take money from social media companies to do their bidding.” And it turns out, he was right. Google has given money to at least 22 right-leaning institutions that are also funded by the Koch network. Those institutions also include the American Conservative Union, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Review Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Mercatus Center, we could go on.
&#8230;
Here’s how it works: Big tech companies silence conservatives. Conservatives’ nonprofits try to prevent the government from doing anything about it. Makes sense.
Then there’s the Heritage Foundation – maybe the biggest and best funded think tank in Washington. Half the conservatives in the city have seemed to work there at one time or another. Almost 30 years ago, I did, for example. To this day, there are a lot of nice and very well-meaning people at Heritage. But, as an organization, Heritage no longer represents the interests of conservatives – at least on the question of tech. A recent paper by Heritage entitled “Free enterprise is the best remedy for online bias concerns,” defends the special privileges that Congress has given to left-wing Silicon Valley monopolies. And if conservatives don’t like it, Heritage says, well they can just start their own Google. The paper could’ve been written by tech lobbyists. In fact, it may have been written by tech lobbyists. A trade association that represents Silicon Valley called the liability exemption that Googles enjoys, “the most important law in tech.”
Well, Heritage’s paper repeats that line verbatim. Word for word. Along with many other lines that the lobbyists wrote. It’s embarrassing. But heritage isn’t embarrassed. None of the so-called “conservative nonprofits” in Washington are embarrassed. They make deals with people who hate you; they secretly sell out your interests; then they beg you to tithe like it’s the medieval church, like you owe them your money. That’s the system that we’ve had for decades. And maybe that’s why, no matter how much money you send, nothing gets more conservative. Just the opposite. You wonder how much longer the system can continue?</blockquote>
The Heritage Foundation responded with a statement on Saturday, saying that Carlson&#8217;s segment contained &#8220;several false, outrageous, and unfounded accusations against The Heritage Foundation.”
Rob Bluey, vice president of communications at Heritage, released the following <a href="https://www.heritage.org/press/heritage-foundation-responds-tucker-carlsons-false-accusations-big-tech">statement</a> in response:
<blockquote>For nearly 50 years, The Heritage Foundation has represented the interests of the American people based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values, and a strong national defense. Heritage does not support policies that deviate from these principles, nor are our recommendations ever influenced by donations or outside political pressure.
It was, therefore, incredibly disappointing to hear Tucker Carlson, whom we hold in high regard, mislead his viewers about Heritage’s work on the topics of big tech and censorship. Carlson is a former employee of Heritage who last year received our <a href="https://www.heritage.org/impact/tucker-carlson-wins-heritages-salvatori-prize-citizenship?_ga=2.141019121.238436227.1576940171-1290591802.1576940171" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">prestigious Salvatori Prize</a> and who regularly features Heritage guests on his Fox News program. In other words, he knows Heritage, our people, and our principles.
Unfortunately, Carlson did not contact us in advance of his segment or provide Heritage with an opportunity to respond to his accusations. Rather than engage in a substantive policy debate, he chose instead to make ad hominem attacks and question our integrity. We are disappointed this came from someone whom we admire and respect.
The Heritage Foundation will not let these attacks go unanswered and we welcome the opportunity to have a substantive debate on public policy.
Carlson’s claims began with an attack on a recent <a href="https://www.heritage.org/technology/report/free-enterprise-the-best-remedy-online-bias-concerns?_ga=2.183944421.238436227.1576940171-1290591802.1576940171" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Heritage report about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a>. He claimed the report’s author repeated lines verbatim from a trade association. This is false. In fact, the 13-page Heritage report contained 22 footnotes, all of which were properly quoted and attributed to sources. The report went through a thorough and lengthy process of vetting and review by Heritage scholars to ensure accuracy and agreement among all Heritage analysts involved in technology and social media policy.
The conclusions of Heritage’s report were based on the principles that guide all of our policy recommendations—principles Carlson seems curiously less interested in defending. Instead, he made an unfounded assertion against Heritage and outrageous smear of one of our scholars. It is disappointing that Carlson would deceive his viewers with such patently false information.
It should come as no surprise that Heritage supports empowering consumers rather than government. We are, and have always been, champions of the free market and critics of government intervention. That’s why we are forcefully pushing back on the few outspoken individuals who seem to prefer an expedient answer rather than a principled solution.
Carlson also failed to acknowledge Heritage experts’ consistent criticism of technology companies, including <a href="https://www.heritage.org/technology/commentary/google-searching-moral-high-ground-the-wrong-places">Google’s decision to withdraw from the Department of Defense’s Project Maven</a> and its work with <a href="https://www.heritage.org/cybersecurity/commentary/googles-plan-censoring-app-china-makes-mockery-its-mission-information">communist China on a censored search engine</a>.
He apparently missed Heritage President Kay C. James’ <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wanted-to-help-google-make-ai-more-responsible-instead-i-was-treated-with-hostility/2019/04/09/cafd1fb6-5b07-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html" data-external="yes">Washington Post op-ed blasting Google</a> for caving to the radical left and disbanding its AI board simply because she, a prominent conservative leader, was asked to join it.
And he made no mention of Google-owned <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/05/youtube-wont-let-a-medical-doctor-say-this-sentence/" data-external="yes">YouTube censoring a video produced by The Daily Signal</a>, Heritage’s multimedia news outlet. On our public platforms and in a private meeting with YouTube’s CEO, we made our position abundantly clear: We will not tolerate this type of censorship and will stand side by side with other conservatives experiencing similar challenges.
Heritage and its team of dedicated scholars are committed to pursuing public policies that make life better for all Americans. Heritage is the largest public policy organization in America with more than 500,000 members and has the No. 1 ranking from the University of Pennsylvania for impact on public policy. We won’t be intimidated or bullied as we continue to represent the interests of conservatives and all Americans.</blockquote>

Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson Attacks Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation Fires Back In Statement.

Heritage Foundation

Fox News host Tucker Carlson admits that President Trump is a &#8220;full-blown B.S. artist&#8221; who &#8220;could&#8217;ve made a fortune selling cars,&#8221; but his knack for twisting the truth to make his &#8220;sales pitches&#8221; isn&#8217;t why the media actually despises him, as they claim. In fact, argued Carlson on his show Wednesday night, the media resents Trump so much for &#8220;the exact opposite&#8221; reason.
&#8220;One of the reasons progressives say they hate Donald Trump is because he lies a lot,&#8221;  Carlson said on his <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-truth-is-the-reason-the-left-despises-trump">Fox News</a> show Wednesday night. &#8220;Trump, they&#8217;ll tell you, is a committed liar, an inveterate one. To prove he point the left has set about trying to catalog Trump&#8217;s dishonesty with the kind of scientific precision you normally associate with obsessed baseball fans or amateur bird watchers. As of last month, according to The Washington Post, Donald Trump has made a total of 13,435 false or misleading statements while in office.&#8221;
Carlson then played a famous claim by Trump which the Post marks as the starting point of Trump&#8217;s presidential lies: his claim that his inauguration crowd was &#8220;the biggest ever.&#8221;
&#8220;We’re not going to lie to you: that was untrue,&#8221; said Carlson. &#8220;The crowd at the 2017 inauguration was not the largest ever measured on the national mall. Sorry. It wasn’t.&#8221;
&#8220;Why did the president claim that it was?&#8221; Carlson asked. &#8220;Well, because that&#8217;s who he is. Donald Trump is a salesman. He&#8217;s a talker, a boaster, a booster, a compulsive self-promoter. At times, he&#8217;s a full-blown B.S. artist. If Trump hadn&#8217;t gotten rich in real estate, he could&#8217;ve made a fortune selling cars. Most people know this. It&#8217;s obvious, transparent, really.&#8221;
Carlson then got to his central argument: Yes, Trump is a &#8220;B.S. artist,&#8221; but his lies are not what is actually driving the mass disdain for him from left-wing politicians and their allies in the media.
&#8220;Is lying really the reason the left despises Donald Trump? Or could the real problem be, as is so often the case, the exact opposite of what they claim it is?&#8221; asked Carlson.
&#8220;Think back over the last four years,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;When have the CNN anchors been the angriest? Was it when Donald Trump told some whopper, or exaggerated his own accomplishments? Nope. They’re used to that kind of lying. Everyone who spends time around politicians is used to it. What infuriates official Washington is not when Trump lies, it&#8217;s when he tells the truth. Truth is the real threat to their power.”
&#8220;There&#8217;s an unspoken agreement among the people in charge of our country not to talk about what has happened to it,&#8221; Carlson said. &#8220;They are personally implicated in its decline, for one thing &#8212; often they&#8217;re profiting from it. The last thing they want is a national conversation about what went wrong. So they maintain an increasingly strict policy of mandatory reality avoidance.&#8221;
As an example of this &#8220;reality avoidance,&#8221; Carlson pointed to our unsustainable immigration policies. &#8220;If the people in charge actually cared about us, they would protect our borders,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The gatekeepers in our national media, the people who should have been sounding the alarm about all of this, but instead made common cause with the ruling class they were supposed to be covering and keeping honest.&#8221;
When Trump tells the truth about the situation at the border, he&#8217;s branded a bigot by Democrats and the media in an attempt to deflect from the issue. Raising such issues as immigration exposes the ruling class&#8217;s &#8220;own egregious failures and selfishness,&#8221; so they instead try to redirect the conversation by declaring that &#8220;Donald Trump is a racist liar.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/washington-post-obama-is-a-conservative">Washington Post: ‘Obama Is A Conservative’</a>
Partial transcript via <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-truth-is-the-reason-the-left-despises-trump">Fox News</a>, <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/trump/a-full-blown-bs-artist-tucker-carlson-says-media-is-right-about-trump-lying-but-defends-him-still/">Mediaite</a>.

Tucker Carlson: Real Reason Media Hates ‘B.S. Artist’ Trump Is Exact Opposite Of What They Claim

Donald Trump

Immigration

Racism

It was a rather innocuous throwaway line, but it was enough to make some ears perk up and further fuel speculation about the prospect of &#8220;Hillary 2020.&#8221;
At an event at Georgetown University Law School on Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton — sitting next to former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and progressive icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — uttered the phrase &#8220;she may or may not run &#8230;&#8221;
&#8220;She may or may not run for anything, but I’m never running for president again,&#8221; said the would-be First Gentleman, as reported by <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/31/bill_clinton_on_hillary_she_may_or_may_not_run.html">RealClearPolitics.</a>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“She may or not ever run for anything, but I can’t legally run for President again.” &#8211; Bill Clinton leaving the door open on <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a> running for President in 2020. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StillWithHer?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StillWithHer</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hillary2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Hillary2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/gDrmcR0ax1">pic.twitter.com/gDrmcR0ax1</a>
&mdash; Joel McAuliffe (@JdMcAuliffe) <a href="https://twitter.com/JdMcAuliffe/status/1189699446776446977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The comment follows a series of equivocal statements by Hillary and her camp suggesting that she is seriously considering a third presidential run. One of the more recent statements about yet another Clinton presidential campaign that turned heads came from longtime Clinton advisor Philippe Reines during an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson two weeks ago.
&#8220;So, I’m assuming what I just said and what we’re hearing is true, that if she thought she was the best position to beat Donald Trump, she would get in the race,&#8221; said Carlson, as reported by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-hillary-clinton-adviser-adds-more-fuel-to-fire-that-clinton-will-run-in-2020">The Daily Wire</a>.
“You know, she ran for president because she thought she would be the best president,” said Reines. “If she still thought that now, if she thought she had the best odds of beating Donald Trump — I think she would think about it long and hard.”
“She’s not — she hasn’t foreclosed the possibility, I guess,” Carlson replied.
&#8220;No, she has not,&#8221; said Reines.
&#8220;She really likes a lot of the people running. She knows them well. She thought about some of them for her vice presidency,&#8221; Reines said later. &#8220;But there might be a reason that she’d be the best person, not only to beat Donald Trump, but to govern after Donald Trump, which is a part we don’t talk about much.  And, look, you can make fun of her all you want, but 65 million people voted for her and that’s second more to anyone except Barack Obama.&#8221;
A recent report by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/politics/democratic-candidates-2020.html">The New York Times</a> likewise has helped stoke speculation that Clinton may end up jumping in the race. &#8220;Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bloomberg have both told people privately in recent weeks that if they thought they could win, they would consider entering the primary — but that they were skeptical there would be an opening, according to Democrats who have spoken with them,&#8221; The Times reported two weeks ago.
&#8220;Democrats who have recently spoken with Mrs. Clinton say she shares the same concerns other party elites have about the field — worried about Mr. Biden’s durability, Ms. Warren’s liberal politics and unsure of who else can emerge to take on Mr. Trump,&#8221; the Times reported.
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/anxiety-rises-among-democrats-worried-about-partys-prospects-in-2020/2019/10/22/b9c015d4-f4d9-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html">The Washington Post</a> reported similar comments from Clinton insiders. &#8220;Hillary Clinton, according to two people close to her, has not ruled out jumping in herself, a sign that she is hearing similar dissatisfaction,&#8221; the Post reported.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachment-witness-told-congress-he-warned-about-biden-ukraine-problem-in-2015-got-shut-down-by-bidens-office">Impeachment Witness Tells Congress He Warned About Biden-Ukraine Problem In 2015, Got Shut Down By Biden’s Office</a>

Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton

WATCH: Bill Clinton Throws Some More Fuel On The ‘Hillary 2020’ Fire

Bill Clinton

Elizabeth Warren

Hillary Clinton

Joe Biden

Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Wednesday over her open &#8220;bigotry&#8221; after she blamed an entire racial group for &#8220;producing climate change&#8221; during a congressional hearing last week.
&#8220;She&#8217;s an unapologetic bigot, someone who attacks others for the way they were born,&#8221; Carlson said. &#8220;There&#8217;s nothing legitimate about that, you can&#8217;t debate bigotry, it&#8217;s pure poison.&#8221;
Carlson continued, &#8220;It&#8217;s terrifying to think that someone who spews open racism has become a role model for our young people but that is exactly what has happened and it&#8217;s been happening since Ocasio-Cortez arrived on the public stage.&#8221;
During the hearing, Ocasio-Cortez asked so-called &#8220;experts&#8221; the following questions:
<blockquote>&#8220;Do we see largely that it&#8217;s the global South and communities of color that may be bearing the brunt of the initial havoc from climate change?&#8221;
&#8220;And in terms of that wealth, the people who are producing climate change, the folks that are responsible for the largest amount of emissions, or communities, or corporations, they tend to be predominantly white, correct?&#8221;</blockquote>
&#8220;The people that are producing climate change, that&#8217;s right, those people, the ones destroying the earth, driving entire species to extinction, killing children,&#8221; Carlson said as he highlighted Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s bigoted statement. &#8220;Ever notice how all those people look alike? They&#8217;ve got something in common, don&#8217;t they? That&#8217;s right, they&#8217;re the same color. That&#8217;s what she&#8217;s saying.&#8221;
&#8220;For all the hysteria you hear about how the president is a racist, Donald Trump has never said  anything close to that, nothing close to as bigoted and vicious as that,&#8221; Carlson continued. &#8220;The people wrecking the world are all of one race? Who talks like that? In fact, it&#8217;s hard to think of anyone in American life saying anything that disgusting and foolish and dangerous.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;There&#8217;s a darker side to AOC&#8230; she&#8217;s an unapologetic bigot.&#8221;
Tucker Carlson explains why AOC is so famous: she&#8217;s authentic. And that&#8217;s why she&#8217;s so dangerous. She has bigoted views and yet she&#8217;s still popular and enabled by the media. <a href="https://t.co/aK4VB6HRsE">pic.twitter.com/aK4VB6HRsE</a>
— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) <a href="https://twitter.com/jasonrantz/status/1189726604659810305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 31, 2019</a></blockquote>
Partial transcript of Carlson&#8217;s remarks on Ocasio-Cortez below:
Unlike most members of Congress, Ocasio-Cortes actually believes most of what she says. It&#8217;s easy to see why young people listen to her and in the end that is the problem with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It&#8217;s not her economic views, the ones that get all the attention. Yes, she&#8217;s a wild-eyed left-winger who&#8217;s pushing socialism on the country. Her ideas maybe stupid and wrong.
The problem is the rest of what she says, there&#8217;s a darker side to Ocasio-Cortez and it has nothing to do with the Green New Deal.
She&#8217;s an unapologetic bigot, someone who attacks others for the way they were born. There&#8217;s nothing legitimate about that. You can&#8217;t debate bigotry, it&#8217;s pure poison.
It&#8217;s terrifying to think that someone who spews open racism has become a role model for our young people but that is exactly what has happened and it&#8217;s been happening since Ocasio-Cortez arrived on the public stage.
During her first run for Congress last year, Ocasio-Cortez suggested that the incumbent who held the seat didn&#8217;t deserve to be in Congress because he was the wrong race. By Election Day, her opponent was literally apologizing for his own skin color. When he accused Ocasio-Cortez of making the election about race, she didn&#8217;t run from it, &#8216;it is about race.&#8217;
Not so long ago a campaign like that would have been considered deeply immoral. The press would have hounded Ocasio-Cortez until she apologized her dropped out, but not anymore. A ruling class no longer recognizes universal standards of any kind, racism they&#8217;ve decided, cuts only one way. So they ignored Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s race baiting and she got elected.
Over time, like any untreated virus, her bigotry grew more inflamed. Here was Ocasio-Cortez just last week in a public hearing explaining that actually global climate change is the fault of a specific racial group.
The people that are producing climate change, that&#8217;s right, those people, the ones destroying the earth, driving entire species to extinction, killing children. Ever notice how all those people look alike? They&#8217;ve got something in common, don&#8217;t they? That&#8217;s right, they&#8217;re the same color. That&#8217;s what she&#8217;s saying.
For all the hysteria you hear about how the president is a racist, Donald Trump has never said  anything close to that. Nothing close to as bigoted and vicious as that. The people wrecking the world are all of one race? Who talks like that? In fact, it&#8217;s hard to think of anyone in American life saying anything that disgusting and foolish and dangerous.
This is an ominous development for this country, talk like this will destroy us.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Tucker Carlson Goes Off On AOC: ‘An Unapologetic Bigot,’ ‘Spews Open Racism’

Fox News

On Monday, author Sil Lai Abrams explained how her rape accusation against music mogul Russell Simmons and sexual assault charge against then &#8211; “Extra” host A.J. Calloway were allegedly killed off by NBC in 2018.
Abrams says Simmons, who has since moved to Bali, raped her in 1994. Mr. Calloway, who no longer works at &#8220;Extra&#8221; — which &#8220;airs in major markets on NBC owned-and-operated stations,&#8221; according to <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/russell-simmons-an-extra-host-nbc-news-a-sexual-assault-accusers-story-1123824">The Hollywood Reporter</a> — allegedly sexually assaulted the author in 2006. Both Simmons and Calloway have denied the allegations.
According to Abrams, her #MeToo claims were set to be covered by MSNBC host Joy Reid before the interview was killed off by NBC higher-ups in the same fashion journalist Ronan Farrow&#8217;s reporting on Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was apparently buried.
&#8220;I have been struck by the company’s (NBC) insistence that Ronan didn’t have the Harvey Weinstein story in the bag,&#8221; Abrams writes at <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-just-ronan-farrow-nbc-news-killed-my-rape-allegation-story-too?ref=scroll">The Daily Beast</a>. &#8220;I don’t believe a word of what it says because in 2018, the network killed my #MeToo story that was being reported by MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid. Incredibly, a year after NBC botched Farrow’s reporting on Harvey Weinstein, they had the audacity to do it again.&#8221;
Abrams says she was put through &#8220;a thorough vetting process” and an on-camera interview with Reid was taped on January 7, 2018, which was scheduled to air six days later. She assumed they would go forward with the taped interview and publish an accompanying #MeToo piece written by Reid for New York magazine. Neither, however, would hit the press. 
The day before the interview was set to air, Abrams was asked to contact Reid. 
&#8220;When we spoke a few hours later, she informed me that Russell Simmons&#8217; attorney had gone ballistic and NBC was not going to air the segment, and the New York magazine story was also on hold since they were paired,&#8221; Abrams said. &#8220;She assured me the story wasn’t dead, but that NBC simply needed more vetting done in order to feel comfortable with moving forward.&#8221;
&#8220;Over the next several months, NBC put me through an elaborate and bizarre vetting process,&#8221; Abrams continues. &#8220;I provided legal documentation, hospital bills, and over a dozen corroborating witnesses. Still, they stonewalled. I asked Joy repeatedly if NBC was going to do to her what it did to Ronan, and she said that she didn’t think so.&#8221;
In mid-February, Reid allegedly emailed Abrams:
<blockquote>“So basically the story got caught up in a couple of vices: the struggle to get comments from the principles (now mostly alleviated), threats from Russell’s lawyer that spooked NBC,” Joy told me via email. “So now NBC… is demanding that I do all of this additional reporting to meet a legal and standards review.”</blockquote>
“Still not clear why NBC is demanding more corroboration regarding A.J. [arrest] &#8230; his lawyer already confirmed the case, but I know this isn’t about you,” Abrams replied to the MSNBC host. 
“My team and I, my PA and senior producer helping me with the story met with the standards department rep today just to figure out what the heck’s going on,” Reid explained to Abrams in a phone call two weeks later. “I just have to get my company to have the guts to do the story. I’ve never done a story that has this much evidence before. I have more evidence than the LA Times and The New York Times stories combined. So the whole thing is, if my company will trust the evidence that I’ve shown them, which is substantial, they will do the story.”
When Abrams asked if the network was going to kill her story due to legal threats from Simmons&#8217; and Calloway’s attorneys, Reid allegedly told her: “We have enough that we have satisfied the standards side, but this is now in the hands of lawyers who have to determine the likelihood of a lawsuit by two people now, and what is the likelihood that we will prevail. … This has now gone up past the attorneys I deal with to the head of NBCUniversal’s lawyers. I’ve never been through anything like this.”
Abrams writes that the last time she spoke with Reid was on April 6, 2018, when Reid told her should take her story elsewhere. Senior management, Reid reportedly told her, had stopped responded to her inquiries about the story.
As reported last week by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tucker-carlson-floats-real-reason-megyn-kelly-was-canned-from-nbc">The Daily Wire</a>, Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested that former NBC host Megyn Kelly was canned from the network because she called for an outside investigation into internal claims of sexual misconduct by former “Today” host Matt Lauer and the handling of Farrow’s reporting on Weinstein. 
“Last September, early September, you (Kelly) on your show, on the air on NBC, called for an independent investigation into these allegations,” Carlson said to Kelly, who appeared alongside the host on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Wednesday night. 
Carlson ran a clip of Kelly from September 2, 2018. “There is a question about whether or not there should be an outside investigator to take a hard look at this,” she said. “To me, as a lawyer, it’s just always better to just send it outside, and then people can have more faith in it and if there’s nothing to hide, you have no worries about it,” Kelly added. 
“People’s jaws hung open when you said that,” Carlson told Kelly. “There have been a couple of published accounts that say you were fired from NBC, a little more than a month later, for saying that.”
Kelly was ostensibly canned from NBC in October for discussing whether it’s “racist” or not for people to darken their faces for Halloween costumes.  
Carlson then pointed out that MSNBC host Chris Hayes similarly questioned NBC’s handling of such allegations and reporting. “He (Hayes) is saying essentially what you said, which is he doesn’t trust the management at NBC News,” he said to Kelly. “Given your experience, do you think he’s in jeopardy of being fired?”
Tellingly, Kelly responded: “No comment to that.” 
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tucker-carlson-floats-real-reason-megyn-kelly-was-canned-from-nbc">Tucker Carlson Floats Real Reason Megyn Kelly Was Canned From NBC: Called For Independent Investigation</a>

Sil Lai Abrams

Author Says Her Rape Claim Set To Air With Joy Reid Was Killed By NBC

Matt Lauer

Megyn Kelly

NBC News

Sexual Assault

On Wednesday night, Fox News&#8217; Tucker Carlson, citing published accounts, suggested the real reason Megyn Kelly was canned from her job at NBC last year was because she called for an outside investigation into the network over internal claims of sexual misconduct and the suspect handling of allegations into Democrat mega-donor Harvey Weinstein. 
&#8220;Last September, early September, you (Kelly) on your show, on the air on NBC, called for an independent investigation into these allegations,&#8221; Carlson said to Kelly, who appeared alongside the host on &#8220;Tucker Carlson Tonight.&#8221;
Carlson ran a clip of Kelly doing just that on September 2, 2018. &#8220;There is a question about whether or not there should be an outside investigator to take a hard look at this,&#8221; Kelly said, referring to allegations of sexual misconduct aimed at former “Today” host Matt Lauer and apparent stonewalling on Weinstein reporting of then-NBC journalist Ronan Farrow. “To me, as a lawyer, it&#8217;s just always better to just send it outside, and then people can have more faith in it and if there&#8217;s nothing to hide, you have no worries about it,” Kelly added. 
&#8220;People&#8217;s jaws hung open when you said that,&#8221; Carlson told Kelly. &#8220;There have been a couple of published accounts that say you were fired from NBC, a little more than a month later, for saying that.&#8221;
Kelly was ostensibly canned from NBC in October for discussing whether it’s “racist” or not for people to darken their faces for Halloween costumes. 
Carlson then pointed out that MSNBC host Chris Hayes similarly questioned NBC&#8217;s handling of such allegations and reporting. 
&#8220;He (Hayes) is saying essentially what you said, which is he doesn&#8217;t trust the management at NBC News,&#8221; Carlson said to Kelly. &#8220;Given your experience, do you think he&#8217;s in jeopardy of being fired?”
&#8220;No comment on that,&#8221; Kelly tellingly responded. “I will say, the question is open as to whether [NBC] put dollars ahead of decency.” 
“There needs to be an outside investigation into this company,” she continued. “They investigated themselves, that doesn&#8217;t work. Fox News had an outside investigator, CBS News had an outside investigator, NPR, the NFL, this is how it’s done. You get somebody on the outside who can be trusted.” 
As outlined by Tiana Lowe earlier this week, it’s become increasingly clear that Kelly was likely fired for questioning NBC management, rather than the “blackface” comments, in light of reporting from Farrow&#8217;s new book &#8220;Catch and Kill.&#8221;
“Ronan Farrow&#8217;s explosive reporting on the lengths NBC went to shut down his investigation into Harvey Weinstein grants further credence to an unpalatable, sexist, and abhorrent rationale for Kelly&#8217;s firing: NBC wanted to silence Kelly&#8217;s coverage of their former anchor, Matt Lauer,” Lowe posted at <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nbc-probably-fired-megyn-kelly-for-her-matt-lauer-coverage">The Washington Examiner</a>. 
“In the weeks before the blackface nothingburger, Kelly spent ample amounts of time on her talk show reporting on the numerous sexual assault and harassment allegations plaguing Lauer. Unlike many of her fellow daytime hosts, Kelly had covered the #MeToo beat in scrupulous and, at times, necessarily unsavory detail: conducting explosive interviews with multiple Weinstein victims, and when the Lauer story broke and his termination from NBC came shortly thereafter, Kelly covered it with the same righteous indignation,” she continued. “On live television, Kelly called on her own employers to allow an external team to investigate the network&#8217;s handling of the entire Lauer affair, and she went so far as to interview one of Lauer&#8217;s accuser on air.”
“It&#8217;s a massive gamble to criticize the ethics of your own employer on national television, but Kelly rightly made that bet. And NBC fired her for it,&#8221; Lowe claimed. &#8220;We can be more confident thanks to new reporting by Farrow.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Megyn Kelly joins Tucker Carlson in first interview since leaving NBC" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BSCiT6OeL2A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tucker Carlson Floats Real Reason Megyn Kelly Was Canned From NBC: Called For Independent Investigation

Harvey Weinstein

Ronan Farrow

The Democratic Party has now gone all-in on the impeachment inquiry of President Trump, even though a majority of Americans oppose such an action.
&#8220;A new <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3641" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">poll</a> showed a majority of Americans oppose the impeachment and removal of the president from office,&#8221; reports <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/poll-impeachment-trump-carlson-hannity-ingraham">Fox News</a>. &#8220;The new poll from <a href="https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3641" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Quinnipiac University</a> found that 37 percent of the public supports the impeachment and removal of the president, while 57 percent oppose it.&#8221;
The poll was conducted just days before Nancy Pelosi pledged to launch a formal inquiry based on the testimony of a whistleblower who alleged that President Trump pressured the Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden using his influence to have a prosecutor fired for investigating his son&#8217;s business dealings in the country. Days later, President Trump released a transcript of the July phone call from when this alleged threat took place.
Both Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity said on Tuesday that impeachment will likely divide the country even more and waste precious time.
&#8220;The most sickening thing about the phase … that we’re about to enter is that House Democrats – they know impeachment, a whole inquiry – is futile.  The Senate Republican majority is not going to vote to convict the president and the country overwhelmingly doesn’t want impeachment,&#8221; said Ingraham.
&#8220;What is happening is dangerous to this country.  It is grossly political, will forever alter how any president in the future &#8212; in his constitutional role as commander-in-chief &#8212; will be able to communicate freely with other world leaders. The world is less safe and secure tonight, as a result of yet the latest partisan witch hunt,&#8221; Hannity said. &#8220;[M]ake no mistake this has nothing to do with Ukraine, this has nothing to do with collusion, this has nothing to do with high crimes and misdemeanors because there are none. This has very to do with the Left’s unyielding, unhealthy, what is an obsessive-compulsive hatred of President Trump. They can’t accept that he won … And I think they even doubt that they can beat him at the ballot box, which is why they are trying to do this now … It is a sickness but now it is officially hurting the country.&#8221;
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat who opposed the Mueller probe into the 2016 election, told Stuart Varney of Fox Business that an impeachment inquiry will backfire badly on the Democrats.
&#8220;I did not see an impeachable crime or any indictable crime,&#8221; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmtwT1mqb1Q">said Dershowitz</a>. &#8220;What I saw is some pretty rough politics. And the answer to that is let the other side play rough politics. In the end, this will be a political tie. It will dirty the Biden camp a little bit. There will be some Americans who will say maybe the president shouldn’t have made that call. It’s not a crime. High or otherwise &#8230; I think it backfires on the Democrats.&#8221;
Tucker Carlson simultaneously lamented how Democrats have focused all of their efforts on impeaching Trump instead of dealing with America&#8217;s problems.
<blockquote>[Democrats] have a lot of energy.  Too bad none of it is focused on the country’s real problems … our national debt is exploding … we have a War in Afghanistan that we can’t seem to win or end, our towns outside the big cities are being decimated and desiccated by opioids and suicide… we have basically an open border with Mexico, tech companies trying to control our freedom of speech … in many ways, the country is on the wrong track and people know it … But instead of trying to fix any of that Democrats want to spend the next year explaining – and they plan to – explaining why it was perfectly fair for Joe Biden’s ne’er-do-well son to get $600,000 a year from Ukrainian oligarchs … but it’s somehow criminal for Donald Trump to ask about that.</blockquote>
Hours after President Trump dropped the transcript, he and Zelensky <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-bashes-obama-on-crimea-first-meeting-with-ukraine-zelensky-2019-9">held a press conference</a>, during which the Ukraine leader denied that Trump ever pressured or threatened him to investigate Joe Biden.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

POLL: Americans Oppose Dem Impeachment Inquiry

Alan Dershowitz

Laura Ingraham

Nancy Pelosi

Sean Hannity

U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Dr. Ben Carson has defended his promoted policy of barring transgender men from lodging at battered women&#8217;s shelters.
Last week, Democrats unilaterally blasted Ben Carson when HUD staffers revealed he said during a private meeting that &#8220;transgender people should get the same rights as everyone else, but they don’t get to change things for everybody else.&#8221; Carson also said that shelter leaders and women&#8217;s groups said they do not want &#8220;big, hairy men&#8221; staying at the shelters. Democrats were so incensed by Carson&#8217;s comments that they immediately began calling for him to be removed as HUD secretary.
&#8220;Shameful. These derogatory comments by Secretary Carson are part of a long pattern that shows his disregard for the transgender community. It’s simply unacceptable,&#8221; said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
Speaking to Tucker Carlson on his Fox News program Friday night, Carson said that he never meant to imply that transgender men have no rights — only that they do not get special rights.
&#8220;I simply pointed out the fact that, you know, we have to have policies that take into consideration everybody’s rights,&#8221; Carson said, as reported by <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nobody-gets-extra-rights-carson-defends-protecting-women-in-shelters-from-gender-confused-men">LifeSiteNews</a>. &#8220;I say everybody has equal rights; nobody gets extra rights.&#8221;
Carson added that his assertions were in line with some women&#8217;s groups that have expressed concern with having transgender men lodge in those shelters.
&#8220;I talked about some of the women&#8217;s groups who have come to me, and I’ve had many in my office, and they say they are uncomfortable with the policy in existence, which says you must accept a person&#8217;s designation of their gender regardless of their physical characteristics,&#8221; Carson continued. &#8220;What we&#8217;ve decided to do, first of all we’ve upheld the 2012 equal access law; we have no intention of changing that, but in terms of that broad definition of gender being whatever you say it is, we said we&#8217;re going to leave that to the local jurisdictions.&#8221;
The Obama administration originally put in place the policy that says battered women&#8217;s shelters must accept transgender men without regard to appearance, anatomy, or the &#8220;complaints of other shelter residents.&#8221; Carson told Carlson on Friday that the federal government has no business telling people who run shelters for battered women how to conduct themselves.
&#8220;If you have a women&#8217;s shelter and you’ve been operating well, you get to decide how you&#8217;re going to run it, the federal government doesn&#8217;t need to be telling people who is a man and who is a woman,&#8221; said Carson. &#8220;That&#8217;s a decision they can make by themselves.&#8221;
&#8220;And I quoted a group that came to me, and they were very upset, and they said, you know, a big hairy man came in here and he says he’s a woman, and that upsets us because many of us are trying to escape that,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;But the political correctness says you have to say what we want you to say, and that will destroy freedom of speech. And I’ve offered transgender groups the opportunity to let me know what their solution would be so that everybody’s rights are observed. I haven’t heard one peep.&#8221;

carson.jpg

Ben Carson Defends Position On Barring Transgender Men From Battered Women&#8217;s Shelters

Ben Carson

LGBT

Political Correctness

Transgender

While most conservatives were dismayed to hear of National Security Advisor John Bolton&#8217;s exit from the White House, Tucker Carlson of Fox News has a different take: He was a &#8220;man of the Left&#8221; and should have been fired.
&#8220;It is great news for America. Especially for the large number of young people who would have been killed in pointless wars if Bolton had stayed on the job,&#8221; said Carlson, according to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-hails-firing-of-john-bolton-he-was-fundamentally-a-man-of-the-left">Fox News</a>. &#8220;They may not be celebrating tonight, but they should be.&#8221;
The Fox News host noted that oil prices apparently dropped upon Bolton&#8217;s firing because global investors &#8220;knew for certain that Bolton planned on launching another Middle Eastern conflict that would inevitably spike energy prices.&#8221;
Carlson then recalled a previous interview he did with Bolton, arguing that he did not understand the consequences of &#8220;regime change&#8221; in the Middle East. He also noted many Democrats were actually critical of Bolton&#8217;s ouster, going on to accuse him of even &#8220;promoting Obama loyalists within the National Security Council.&#8221;
&#8220;If you are wondering why so many progressives are mourning Bolton’s firing tonight, it&#8217;s because Bolton himself fundamentally was a man of the Left,&#8221; Carlson said. &#8220;There was not a human problem John Bolton wasn’t totally convinced could be solved with the brute force of government. That’s an assumption of the Left, not the Right. Don’t let the mustache fool you.&#8221;
&#8220;In some ways, the story isn&#8217;t simply about John Bolton, it&#8217;s about the countless John Boltons who currently staff the federal bureaucracy: Deeply mediocre lifers, drunk on hubris, protected by bulletproof job security,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;They&#8217;re more likely to die on the job than be fired and they know it. As a group, these people have done a lot to make this country poorer and sadder and more divided.&#8221;
Most conservatives, such as Daily Wire Editor-at-Large Josh Hammer, have argued otherwise. In an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51610/hammer-bad-trump-presidents-dismissal-john-bolton-josh-hammer">op-ed</a> on Tuesday, Hammer said the Bolton firing was a capitulation to Iran:
<blockquote>Today, President Donald Trump, in what can only be described as a woefully myopic move straight out of the Barack Obama-John Kerry-Ben Rhodes axis of capitulation playbook, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51591/breaking-trump-boots-national-security-adviser-ryan-saavedra">effectively fired</a> longtime Iran hawk John Bolton from his lofty perch of national security advisor. The boneheaded move, which closely follows the fallout of the president&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51504/trump-reveals-secret-meeting-planned-taliban-heres-ryan-saavedra">aborted Camp David dalliance</a> with Taliban jihadist thugs, comes at a time when the Trump administration has been publicly doubling down in its alleged commitment to the goal of <a href="https://www.apnews.com/e6bd6334ff4148f2985de059f93dc390">&#8220;maximum pressure&#8221;</a> on the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/43339/hammer-iranian-revolution-forty-years-old-stand-josh-hammer">terrorist</a> Iranian regime. Evincing the message discipline of a woebegone high-schooler, though, the president has combined such purported commitment to &#8220;maximum pressure&#8221; with his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/08/28/if-trump-wants-meet-irans-rouhani-both-allies-enemies-will-stand-his-way/">ceaseless</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-trump/trump-says-he-could-meet-with-iranian-president-rouhani-idUSKCN1VU25N">sycophancy</a> toward and expressed desire to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
Bolton, who is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49313/hammer-inter-agency-fight-white-house-closes-door-josh-hammer">infamously hawkish</a> on the issue of jihadism and radical Islamic terror, strongly opposed the president&#8217;s dovish overtures on the Taliban and Rouhani alike. Such opposition, even amidst the purported &#8220;maximum pressure&#8221; campaign, appears to have cost Bolton his job.</blockquote>
In response to news that Trump fired him, Bolton said in a tweet that the president did not immediately accept his resignation. &#8220;I offered to resign last night and President Trump said, &#8216;Let&#8217;s talk about it tomorrow,'&#8221; he tweeted.

John Bolton

Tucker Carlson Supports John Bolton Firing: ‘Fundamentally A Man Of The Left’

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio revealed on Thursday that if elected president, he would implement a federal gun confiscation program where American citizens would be required to turn over their semi-automatic rifles to the government, but law enforcement officers would be excluded from the ban.
&#8220;You have said that you&#8217;re for mandatory buybacks of semi-automatic rifles,&#8221; Fox News host Tucker Carlson said to de Blasio. &#8220;There are tens of millions of these rifles in circulation now, and presumably some large number of people won&#8217;t feel like selling them to the government. What do you do with those people?&#8221;
<div class="embed video fluid-video">Watch the latest video at <a data-scayt-word="href" data-wsc-lang="en_US">href=&#8221;https://www.foxnews.com&#8221;&gt;foxnews.com</a></div>
&#8220;We&#8217;ve got to end the availability of assault weapons in this country, so I think if there was a ban on assault weapons and there was a buyback program, the vast majority of people, I think, would do the smart thing and they would sell them back,&#8221; the Democratic mayor replied. &#8220;I don&#8217;t have a specific answer for you, but I think it&#8217;s a good question.&#8221;
Carlson sounded the alarm that a federal gun-grab could lead to violent clashes across the nation as law-abiding gun owners fear they would be losing their ability to defend themselves and their families. He subsequently pressed the Democratic presidential hopeful on the logistics of how the plan would be executed considering it is unlikely that gun owners would willingly hand over their firearms.
&#8220;I&#8217;m being honest with you, I think anyone in public life should say, you know, when we think we have an answer or whether it&#8217;s something we still have to work out,&#8221; de Blasio said. &#8220;What I know is this: we cannot have assault weapons in our society – we&#8217;ve seen the devastating impact, they need to be banned. And that means by definition you don&#8217;t leave millions and millions of them out there.&#8221;
&#8220;The buyback&#8217;s the obvious approach,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;How we deal with someone who doesn&#8217;t want to participate in the buyback, that&#8217;s something we&#8217;ll have to resolve going forward.&#8221;
De Blasio put forth that the ban would not violate the Second Amendment considering there would still be a variety of other firearms available for both hunting and self-defense, but the so-called &#8220;military grade assault weapons&#8221; do not belong in the hands of ordinary Americans.
Carlson further questioned whether the security detail that de Blasio is provided as mayor would be subject to the same limitations as their fellow citizens. The Democratic lawmaker contended that as a government official he is potentially more exposed to violence and therefore needs the additional protection that semi-automatic rifles provide.
&#8220;They&#8217;re sworn law enforcement officers,&#8221; de Blasio said referring to his bodyguards. &#8220;Sworn law enforcement officers who are here to protect all of us.&#8221;
&#8220;Someone who serves in public office for a limited period of time, and in the society that we&#8217;re living in, and I hate to say it but public servants are vulnerable to violence in a different way,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Our law enforcement officers are there to protect all of us.&#8221;

billdeblasio

WATCH: De Blasio Wants To Seize Semi-Automatic Rifles From Citizens, But His Bodyguards Can Keep Theirs

Bill de Blasio

Fox News&#8217; Tucker Carlson reported Thursday night on a new report from David Steinberg about the allegations surrounding Rep. Ilhan Omar&#8217;s (D-MN) marital history.
&#8220;David Steinberg spent a decade as PJ Media&#8217;s New York editor. He has been closely investigating Ilhan Omar&#8217;s background for years since she entered public life,&#8221; Carlson began. &#8220;He&#8217;s cultivated sources within the Minnesota Somali community. He knows as much about Omar&#8217;s background as any reporter could know. Very few are interested, but he&#8217;s deeply interested and he should be. Just this morning, Steinberg released a piece on Power Line. In that piece he repeats the claim that Omar married her biological brother.&#8221;
Carlson continued: &#8220;And then he makes this stunning allegation, sourced to members of the Minneapolis Somali community: &#8216;In 1995 Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the Omar family. That is not her family. The Omar family is a second unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family. Ilhan&#8217;s genetic family split up at this time. Ilhan&#8217;s three other siblings, using their real names, managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.'&#8221;
&#8220;Steinberg goes on to say Ilhan&#8217;s brother was one of those three siblings and that she was later legally married to this man, her biological brother, from 2009 until 2017,&#8221; Carlson stated. &#8220;It&#8217;s a shocking claim, so far it is unproven. Omar has denied the story, but she hasn&#8217;t disproven it. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Omar&#8217;s local newspaper responsible for a lot of fawning coverage about Omar, has tried to investigate the matter. They say they can neither confirm nor rebut the allegations. Omar is not participating. Last month, the paper noted that Omar has refused even to provide the full names of her immediate family. Let&#8217;s read that again, the paper revealed last month that Omar will not even reveal the names of her family. None of her relatives have come forward to comment on this, by the way. It is all bizarre, but it deserves to be investigated. There is far more smoke here than ever was for the idea that say, &#8216;the president colluded with Russia to rig the election.&#8217; So, we&#8217;d like to know more.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FEmDYILYU68" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
President Donald Trump briefly on Wednesday spoke about the allegations surrounding Omar, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49614/watch-trump-brings-allegations-ilhan-omar-married-ryan-saavedra">saying</a>: &#8220;There&#8217;s a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother. I know nothing about it. … I’m sure that somebody would be looking at that.&#8221;
Last month, the Star Tribune <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dozens-of-documents-indicate-ilhan-omar-lived-with-ahmed-hirsi-while-claiming-to-be-married-to-ahmed-elmi">reported</a> that &#8220;new investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man — possibly her own brother — to skirt immigration laws.&#8221;
&#8220;Sent a list of questions and a request to talk to her siblings and father, Omar declined to do so,&#8221; the Tribune added. &#8220;Omar declined to make her tax and immigration records available for this report. &#8230; Omar’s relatives could also clear the air, but they have remained silent about her marriage &#8230; She declined to make her family available for this story.&#8221;
The Washington Examiner <a href="http://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage/511681362/?refresh=true">reported</a> a slightly different aspect of the story last month:
<blockquote>Dozens of official documents suggest that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was living with her current husband, Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, throughout her entire legal marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, contradicting the story she tells to explain her multiple marriages.</blockquote>
The allegations surrounding Omar&#8217;s marital history resurfaced last month after a Minnesota campaign finance investigation found that Omar &#8220;filed taxes in 2014 and 2015 with her current husband, Ahmed Hirsi, while she was still legally married to but separated from Elmi,&#8221; the Star Tribune added.

Tucker Carlson Reports On New Allegations About Omar’s Marital History

Ilhan Omar

On his Fox News show this week, Tucker Carlson addressed what he suggested is the most egregious and &#8220;obvious&#8221; college admission scandal: the steady stream of &#8220;the offspring of prominent Democrats&#8221; flowing into Ivy League schools — among them four of Al Gore&#8217;s children, who all enjoyed admission into Harvard, the son of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who got into Yale, and CNN host and gym enthusiast Chris Cuomo, son of the former governor of New York.
Carlson led off his monologue by focusing on Cuomo. As footage of Cuomo working out played in the background, Carlson asked: &#8220;How exactly did Chris Cuomo — who &#8216;can barely speak English&#8217; — get into Yale?&#8221;
&#8220;Is Chris Cuomo a secret genius? Does he have some amazing talent that’s invisible on TV? Maybe he speaks flawless Urdu? Or has a deep grounding in particle physics? Or can calculate pi to the final digit?&#8221; said Carlson. &#8220;Actually, no. Chris Cuomo can’t do any of that. It turns out that he has an even more impressive qualification: His father was the governor of New York. If you want to get into a top American college, it’s best to have a parent who’s a well-known Democratic politician. That’s the most effective credential of all.&#8221;
Carlson then rattled off a list of children of Democratic politicians who have all managed to get into exclusive schools, including the kids of DeBlasio, Sens. Michael Bennett, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bob Menendez, Chuck Schumer, and, of course, former presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
&#8220;How does this happen? Because our meritocracy is a sham. It’s fake,&#8221; said Carlson. &#8220;They tell you that only the most accomplished students get into these schools. They’re lying. Their friends’ kids get first dibs. Fellow members of their social circle. Kids whose families can help them down the road. The children of sympathetic politicians are an obvious priority for admissions officers. These are the same politicians who funnel many billions in tax dollars to colleges and universities every year. Letting a senator’s kid into Harvard is smart business. The quid quo pro is obvious. It’s a form of unregulated lobbying. Remember the varsity blues scandal in California, where a group of socially-anxious soccer moms tried to game college admissions? This is far more corrupt, except nobody’s going to prison for it.&#8221;
Video and transcript below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fhHH1AJtZ3Y" width="640" height="330" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
Transcript via <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/09/tucker_carlson_how_did_cnns_chris_cuomo_get_into_yale.html">RealClearPolitics</a>:
<blockquote>If you’ve ever watched Chris Cuomo on CNN, you may have wondered: how did this guy get a TV show? Sure, he’s got well-defined abdominal muscles, and good for him. But he can barely speak English. There are nights when Cuomo emits entire paragraphs that mean nothing at all. Just pure gibberish, like pig Latin, or dogs barking. It’s remarkable. Was this guy educated in the United States? Let’s check Wikipedia. Wait it a second. The entry says that Chris Cuomo went to Yale University in Connecticut. That can’t be right. Yale has famously high admissions standards. Your kids couldn’t get in. No chance. They’d have to be incredibly smart — geniuses, really. Is Chris Cuomo a secret genius? Does he have some amazing talent that’s invisible on TV? Maybe he speaks flawless Urdu? Or has a deep grounding in particle physics? Or can calculate pi to the final digit? Actually, no. Chris Cuomo can’t do any of that.
It turns out that he has an even more impressive qualification: His father was the governor of New York. If you want to get into a top American college, it’s best to have a parent who’s a well-known Democratic politician. That’s the most effective credential of all.
Don’t take our word for it. Ask Dante DeBlasio, son of Bill DeBlasio, the incompetent mayor of New York. There’s no evidence the younger DeBlasio did remarkably well in high school. And yet, like Chris Cuomo, he somehow got into Yale.
Once there, Dante DeBlasio found himself surrounded by people just like himself: the thoroughly average children of other prominent liberals. According to press reports, That would include the offspring of at least three Democrats currently-serving in the US Senate: Michael Bennett, Amy Klobuchar and Sheldon Whitehouse. All of them sent kids to Yale.
Their colleague Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, meanwhile, is one of a stunning number of senate Democrats who’ve sent children Harvard. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey is a Harvard parent. So is senate minority leader Chuck Schumer. Schumer sent both his kids to Harvard. Barack Obama sent one of his. So did former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.
The all-time record, though, must go to former Vice President Al Gore. Gore sent four. Imagine that: Four kids in a row to Harvard. What are the odds of that occurring in nature? Statistically, it’s about as likely as being hit by lightning every single day for a year. Yet somehow the Gore family pulled it off. Congratulations.
Andrew Cuomo, the sitting governor of New York, sent one of his kids to Harvard, but the other two went to Brown. That’s also an Ivy League university that your kids could never get into. Brown is, as they say, “highly selective,” at least for the children of non-politicians.
But for pure, 200-proof exclusivity, nothing beats Stanford University outside San Francisco. You could live your entire life in this country and never meet a single person who went to Stanford. It’s that rarified. And yet here’s the amazing part: Hillary Clinton’s daughter breezed right in. How did Chelsea do that? Was it her formidable brainpower? Check out her twitter feed, and judge for yourself.
Now, there’s a chance that Chelsea is intentionally misleading us. It’s possible that her entire public persona is performance art — a subversive, Borat-style parody of mindless lifestyle liberalism. If that’s the case, Chelsea Clinton is utterly brilliant. She’s the Jonathan Swift of our time. But it’s also possible that Chelsea isn’t joking at all.
It is possible, indeed even probable, that she is every bit as dull and self-serious as she seems. In that case, not only is Chelsea Clinton profoundly sub-brilliant, you’ve got to wonder how she holds a paying job. How did someone like that get into Stanford?
You might have the same question about some of the kids at Georgetown University, here in Washington. Georgetown’s alumni magazine is available online, so the next time you’ve got a minute, take a look. You’ll recognize many of the names: Biden, Pelosi, Kennedy. These are the children of famous Democratic politicians. Are they impressive, hardworking kids who deserve to be at one of America’s most prestigious universities? Maybe some of them. Maybe not.
That’s irrelevant. They’re the offspring of prominent Democrats. That’s why they’re at Georgetown. How does this happen? Because our meritocracy is a sham. It’s fake. They tell you that only the most accomplished students get into these schools. They’re lying. Their friends’ kids get first dibs. Fellow members of their social circle. Kids whose families can help them down the road. The children of sympathetic politicians are an obvious priority for admissions officers. These are the same politicians who funnel many billions in tax dollars to colleges and universities every year. Letting a senator’s kid into Harvard is smart business. The quid quo pro is obvious. It’s a form of unregulated lobbying. Remember the varsity blues scandal in California, where a group of socially-anxious soccer moms tried to game college admissions? This is far more corrupt, except nobody’s going to prison for it.
So how many Chris Cuomos get into Yale every year? We don’t really know. Like almost everything about higher education, it’s opaque. Prestigious schools can pretend they admit only the most qualified applicants, because nobody can prove otherwise. The real admissions numbers are secret, hidden from public view.
Elite colleges are like public companies that lie about their balance sheets. They’re cooking the books to defraud shareholders. In this case, the shareholders are the entire country. A handful of schools form the gateway to success in America. If you go to Harvard, you are all but guaranteed to make more over the course of your life than someone who didn’t. It’s that simple. When you rig the admissions system, you’re rigging American society. You’re creating an impenetrable class system for your own benefit. And that’s exactly what they’re doing.
You often hear progressives say they worry about income inequality. They don’t mean it. How do you know? Because if the left really cared about the stratification of American society, they’d make college admissions transparent. They’d force Stanford to open the books and show the rest of us how they’re assembling this year’s freshman class. And yet Democrats in Congress haven’t done this. They seem strangely incurious about the process. It’s like they don’t really want to know how it all works. In fact, they already know precisely how admissions works, and they strongly approve. Why wouldn’t they? Their kids are befitting from it.</blockquote>

Tucker Carlson: The Real College Admission Scandal Involves Democratic Politicians

In an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that was conducted in Japan, President Trump ripped the Democratic politicians that run major cities in America for soaring homelessness that plagues their cities, asserting, “This is the liberal establishment; this is what I’m fighting.” He pointed out that many of the cities Carlson cited for becoming repositories for urine on the street and needles from junkies are sanctuary cities, adding, “They’re run by very liberal people and the states are run by very liberal people … Do they really think this is okay? Because it’s not. It’s destroying their city and it’s destroying a whole way of life.” Trump said bluntly, “We may intercede.”
The exchange began with Carlson noting, “You come to where we are now, Osaka, or Tokyo, and the cities are clean; there’s no graffiti; there’s no one going to the bathroom on the street; you don’t see junkies … ”
Trump replied, “It’s very nice, isn’t it.”
Carlson pointed out, “It’s very different from our cities.”
Trump agreed, “Yup. Some of our cities.”
Carlson repeated, “Some of our cities. But New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles; they’ve got a major problem with filth.”
Trump said, “It’s very sad. It’s very sad.”
Carlson then prompted Trump, asking, “Why is that?”
Trump answered:
<blockquote>It&#8217;s a phenomenon that started two years ago; it’s disgraceful; I’m gonna maybe — and I’m looking at it very seriously— we’re doing some other things, as you probably notice, like some of the very important things we’re doing now; where but we’re looking at it very seriously because you can’t do that. You can’t have what’s happening, where police officers are getting sick just by walking the beat, I mean. They’re getting actually very sick, where people are getting sick; people living there are living in hell, too, although some of them have mental problems where they don’t even know they’re living that way, in fact, perhaps they like living that way. They can’ do that. They cannot ruin our cities.
And you have people who work in those cities; they work in office buildings and to get into the building they have to walk though a scene that nobody would have believed possible three years ago. This is the liberal establishment; this is what I’m fighting. I don’t know if they’re afraid of votes; I don’t know if they really believe that this should be taking place, but it’s a terrible thing that’s taking place and we may be — you know, I had a situation when I first became president, we had certain areas in Washington, D.C. where that was starting to happen. And I ended it very quickly. I said, “You can’t do that. When we have leaders of the world coming in to see the president of the United States and they’re riding down a highway, they can’t be looking at that.”
I really believe that it hurts our country. They can’t be looking at scenes like you see in Los Angeles and San Francisco. San Francisco, I own property in San Francisco so I don’t care except it was so beautiful. And now areas that you used to think as being, really something very special, you take a look at what’s going on with San Francisco and it’s terrible. So we’re looking at it very seriously. We may intercede. We may do something to get that whole thing cleaned up. It’s inappropriate. Now, we have to take the people and do something; we have to do something. And, you know, we’re really not very equipped as a government to be doing that kind of work; that’s not really the kind of work that the government probably should be doing — we’ve never had this in our lives before in our country, and it’s not only those few cities; it’s a couple of other cities</blockquote>
Carlson interjected, “No, it’s a lot.”
Trump concluded: “At the same time, most of our cities are doing great; but if you look at some of these; they’re usually sanctuary cities; they’re run by very liberal people and the states are run by very liberal people. But the thing that nobody can figure out is, are these governors or mayors, do they really think this is a positive? Do they really think this is okay? Because it’s not. It’s destroying their city and it’s destroying a whole way of life. And it’s not our country; it’s not what our country’s all about.”
Video below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mtYatlsv86k?start=188" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Trump Rips Democrats For Cities Becoming Filthy: ‘It&#8217;s Destroying A Whole Way Of Life’

Los Angeles

New York

San Francisco

President Trump took to Twitter Friday morning to slam the &#8220;failing and desperate&#8221; New York Times over a report that one of its journalists &#8220;was feeding false stories&#8221; about Trump to the FBI &#8212; a characterization of the incident the Times&#8217; refutes.
&#8220;Just revealed that the Failing and Desperate New York Times was feeding false stories about me, &amp; those associated with me, to the FBI,&#8221; Trump wrote in a pair of tweets. &#8220;This shows the kind of unprecedented hatred I have been putting up with for years with this Crooked newspaper. Is what they have done legal?&#8221;
He then provided a quote from Fox News&#8217; morning show &#8220;Fox &amp; Friends&#8221;: &#8220;This Russia Collusion Hoax was perpetrated in part by people inside the government, and in part by a compliant (Fake News) media,&#8221; he wrote, citing The Federalist&#8217;s Mollie Hemingway. &#8220;The facts are starting to pour out. Stay tuned!&#8221; he added.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Just revealed that the Failing and Desperate New York Times was feeding false stories about me, &amp; those associated with me, to the FBI. This shows the kind of unprecedented hatred I have been putting up with for years with this Crooked newspaper. Is what they have done legal?&#8230;
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142044450413301760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
&#8230;.&#8221;This Russia Collusion Hoax was perpetrated in part by people inside the government, and in part by a compliant (Fake News) media.&#8221; Mollie Hemingway. <a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TuckerCarlson</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/foxandfriends?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@foxandfriends</a> The facts are starting to pour out. Stay tuned!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142044452258766849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Trump appears to be referencing a report published Thursday by the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/nyt-reporter-flagged-jared-kushner-meetings-with-russians-to-fbi">Washington Examiner</a> based on an email obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.
&#8220;A New York Times reporter fed information about Jared Kushner meeting with Russians to the FBI, newly released emails show,&#8221; The Washington Times&#8217; Daniel Chatin reported Thursday. &#8220;Journalist Michael Schmidt sent an email on March 24, 2017, to FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan, stating that his colleagues were reporting on the FBI&#8217;s Russia investigation and had stumbled onto some information about President Trump&#8217;s son-in-law and top adviser.&#8221;
&#8220;Wanted to flag you on something,&#8221; Schmidt told Kortan. &#8220;Three of my colleagues are working on a story about the Russia investigation. They&#8217;re told that Jared Kushner is among the individuals who the F.B.I. is scrutinizing for their meetings with Russians. My colleagues were told that Ambassador Kislyak, after meeting Kushner and General Flynn in early December at Trump Tower, set up a meeting with Kushner and a Russian banker. Kushner ultimately met with the Russian banker. The banker worked for Alpha Bank. Thanks. Mike.&#8221;
&#8220;Kortan forwarded the email to FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who was leading the bureau&#8217;s Russia investigation, and Jonathan Moffa, an FBI counterintelligence officer,&#8221; Chatin reports.
As noted by <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/21/donald-trump-accuses-the-new-york-times-of-feeding/">The Washington Times</a>, The New York Times has since pushed back on the report and Trump&#8217;s claim, NYTimes Communications asserting in a tweet that they don&#8217;t &#8220;feed stories to the government or anyone else&#8221; and that what the email shows is just a journalist doing what he&#8217;s supposed to do: attempt to &#8220;ensure fairness and accuracy.&#8221;
&#8220;We don&#8217;t feed stories to the government or anyone else,&#8221; NYTimes Communications wrote. &#8220;We routinely reach out to those who figure prominently in our coverage for comment to ensure fairness and accuracy.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We don&#8217;t feed stories to the government or anyone else. We routinely reach out to those who figure prominently in our coverage for comment to ensure fairness and accuracy.
&#8212; NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1142062554652512261?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48527/trump-trolls-ocasio-cortez-2020-she-calls-his-james-barrett">Trump Trolls Ocasio-Cortez On 2020; She &#8216;Calls His Bluff,&#8217; Disses &#8216;The Rest Of The Country&#8217;</a>

Trump: NYT Fed False Stories To FBI About Me; NYT: We Were Just Being Journalists

New York Times

Trump Administration

Amid a series of dramatic reports about the administration&#8217;s response to Iran&#8217;s escalation of tensions with the U.S., Fox News host Tucker Carlson dedicated his monologue Thursday night to criticizing the &#8220;warmongers in Washington&#8221; and defending President Trump&#8217;s &#8220;rightful skepticism&#8221; about war with Iran.
Despite &#8220;noble intentions,&#8221; our attempts to &#8220;remake the Middle East in our image&#8221; has resulted in &#8220;dismal failure,&#8221; <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-warmongers-in-washington-badly-want-a-war-with-iran-trump-is-rightfully-skeptical">said</a> Carlson, in comments delivered during his primetime Fox show. &#8220;Donald Trump was one of the rare Republican politicians honest enough to admit this. He said it out loud three years ago, and promised not to repeat the same mistakes if elected president. And partly because he said that, he was elected president.&#8221;
And now, said Carlson, the same people who pushed for the Iraq &#8220;quagmire&#8221; are doing it again, this time calling for war with Iran. &#8220;The president, to his great credit, appears to be skeptical of this &#8212; very skeptical,&#8221; said Carlson.
Carlson then highlighted comments Trump made Thursday after Iran downed a U.S. surveillance drone in which he clearly attempted to de-escalate the situation:
<blockquote>
Trump: Iran made a big mistake. This drone was in international waters. Clearly we have it all documented. I would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down. Unfortunately, that drone was unarmed. It was not &#8212; there was no man in it. And there was no &#8212; it was just &#8212; it was over international waters, clearly over international waters. But we didn&#8217;t have a man or woman in the drone. We had nobody in the drone. It would have made a big difference, let me tell you. It would have made a big, big difference. I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth. I think that it could been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it.
</blockquote>
Trump&#8217;s response, said Carlson, is &#8220;not nearly bellicose enough for the permanent foreign policy establishment in Washington, many of whom crave a war with Iran, and see every provocation as an opportunity to start one.&#8221;
One of those &#8220;warmongers,&#8221; suggested Carlson, is Sen. Lindsey Graham, who argued that Trump should &#8220;put [Iran&#8217;s] oil refineries on our target list, and that he should look at sinking the Iranian Navy if they attack shipping again.&#8221;
The reason the warmongers continue to warmonger, said Carlson, is that &#8220;in Washington, there are no real consequences for being wrong.&#8221; Lawmakers can continue to repeat the same mistake with no fear of being called to the carpet.
And the warmongers are not just in Washington: they&#8217;re also in the media, including over at The New York Times, where Bret Stephens is urging similar action by the adminstration, the host said. Though they&#8217;ll never admit it, they &#8220;want a war badly, badly enough to lie about it.&#8221;
A series of reports Thursday night highlighted the precariousness of the situation between the U.S. and Iran. The New York Times reported that &#8220;the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries,&#8221; Thursday. &#8220;The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.&#8221; The Associated Press has since reported that rather than calling off a strike mid-air, the U.S. &#8220;abruptly called off preparations for a military strike against Iran.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48696/nyt-trump-ordered-attack-pulled-back-mid-strike-james-barrett">NYT: Trump Ordered Attack, Pulled Back Mid-Strike; Iran: Trump Warned Us About Imminent Attack, Called For Talks</a>
Carlson transcript via <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-warmongers-in-washington-badly-want-a-war-with-iran-trump-is-rightfully-skeptical">FoxNews.com</a>.

Tucker Carlson: Washington Warmongers Want War With Iran, Trump &#8216;Rightfully Skeptical&#8217;

Iran

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis had a secret meeting with a top Amazon cloud sales executive in 2017 before the Pentagon announced a $10 billion cloud computing contract that critics say was designed to be fulfilled only by Amazon, Fox News&#8217; Tucker Carlson reported on Friday.
Earlier this month, <a href="https://theintercept.com/2019/06/03/amazon-defense-department-jedi-contract/">The Intercept</a> reported:
<blockquote>
Amazon Web Services and Microsoft are now the two finalists to win the highly contested $10 billion contract for what is known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI. The deal, one of the largest federal contracts in U.S. history, would pay one company to provide cloud computing services in support of Defense Department operations around the world.
</blockquote>
The Intercept further noted that there are allegations that former DOD official Deap Ubhi, who left to work for Amazon in 2017, &#8220;worked on the preliminary research for the JEDI program in the late summer and fall of 2017&#8221; and was &#8220;also engaged in a secret job negotiation with Amazon for months, complete with salary discussions, offers of signing bonuses, and lucrative stock options.&#8221;
During his program on Friday, Carlson reported:
<blockquote>
Well, the Department of Defense exists to protect America from foreign threats and does a great job with that, thank God, but it&#8217;s also a massive consumer of tax dollars, the biggest really. And for that reason, concerns about corruption are always there. There&#8217;s reason to believe that over the past couple of years some at the Pentagon have worked to enrich Amazon, already the world&#8217;s richest company. In 2017, the Pentagon announced a $10 billion cloud computing contract. According to critics, the contract wasn&#8217;t actually competitive, it was designed from the very start to be fulfilled by Amazon and only by Amazon.
Several of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis&#8217; aides had prior professional ties to Amazon. A key official working on the Pentagon&#8217;s cloud computing program was carrying out secret job negotiations with Amazon even as he worked on the Pentagon&#8217;s program. And we can report exclusively tonight on this program that in March 2017, before the cloud computing contract was announced, Secretary Mattis had a secret dinner in London with Amazon&#8217;s top cloud sales executive, Teresa Carlson [emphasis added].
</blockquote>
A source told The Daily Wire that Carlson referred to Mattis&#8217; dinner with the Amazon official as &#8220;secret&#8221; because Teresa Carlson&#8217;s name was redacted from itinerary records, which were later unredacted.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Carlson referred to the meeting as &#8220;secret&#8221; because the name of the Amazon employee he allegedly had dinner with was redacted from the itinerary.
Here is the redacted and unredacted itinerary <a href="https://t.co/ZYFrOlaIE0">pic.twitter.com/ZYFrOlaIE0</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1140279777825132545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Carlson then cut to a segment with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) where he asked Meadows about the secret meeting that Mattis had with the Amazon official.
&#8220;So a detail that bothered me and correct me if I&#8217;m getting this wrong, Secretary Mattis met with this Amazon official but then the Pentagon tried to keep that meeting secret as if it were some national security secret, which of course it&#8217;s not,&#8221; Carlson said. &#8220;Why wouldn&#8217;t they be open about that?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, when you look at a procurement process, they should be open and transparent and competitive and when you look at it keeping you know somebody as high as General Mattis meeting with a potential bidder of a contract of $10 billion and even beyond that there are some suggestions the Department of Defense inspector general is looking at this in terms of possible conflict of interest,&#8221; Meadows responded. &#8220;So whether it be with General Mattis or with other individuals, what we want to make sure of is that the American people get the best value for their dollar and you can&#8217;t do that if you&#8217;re designing a contract to go just to one bidder.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AI_Wp_JC5G4" width="560"></iframe></div>

Defense Secretary Mattis Had Secret Dinner With Amazon Official Before $10 Billion Contract Announced, Tucker Carlson Reports

Amazon

James Mattis

Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Friday, noting that she hates the United States and that she was &#8220;a symbol of America&#8217;s failed immigration system if there ever was one.&#8221;
Carlson&#8217;s remarks came after the Trump administration rolled out a new plan to overhaul the immigration system by making it a merit-based system.
During the five-and-a-half minute segment, Carlson also took a shot at Omar, who called for the abolishment of ICE this week along with ending deportations and decriminalizing illegal immigration.
&#8220;For the Left, whether the country benefits is not the point. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar &#8212; herself a symbol of America&#8217;s failed immigration system if there ever was one, someone who hates this country coming here at public expense &#8212; spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself, and an end to all deportation programs,&#8221; Carlson said. &#8220;She demands open borders, the unlimited arrival of anyone who wants to come to America, whether they have anything to contribute or not, and by the way, you get to pay for it. And if you don&#8217;t want to, you&#8217;re a bigot.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Tucker Carlson: &#8220;Ilhan Omar, herself a symbol of America&#8217;s failed immigration system&#8230;someone who hates this country&#8230;spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself, and an end to all deportation programs&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/qUl3O8Jq4g">pic.twitter.com/qUl3O8Jq4g</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1129541175466086400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Full video:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F9vEavSi5Qk" width="560"></iframe></div>
Transcript:
<blockquote>
This week the trump administration revealed its proposal to overhaul America&#8217;s immigration system. The proposal would not by itself build the often-promised wall on our southern border nor would it cut current levels of immigration despite the fact that most Americans would like to see that happen. The one big thing the administration&#8217;s proposal would do is give priority to immigrants who might actually help America, skilled workers with English proficiency. It&#8217;s hard to see an argument against a system like that. There isn&#8217;t really an argument against that system. For years Democrats have argued that immigrants make vital additions to our economy: they are smarter than we are, they are harder working, and do better in school. They found more companies. The president has decided to take Democrats at their word. He says he wants all of those good things that immigrants bring.
Well, much the world would move here if they could, hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. So why wouldn&#8217;t we pick the absolute best? Immigrants with skills and English would fit in better here: their kids would do better in school, they would be more likely to contribute to social programs instead of draining them. So, are Democrats rejoicing in this change? Of course not. They are outraged. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke for the party when she said really merit is a bad word because everybody has merit.
What a shame we can&#8217;t staff the Democratic caucus in the Congress using the same criteria the speaker would like to fill our country. We want to attract the best from many parts of the world she says, but of course, by that Pelosi doesn&#8217;t mean what she says, she means just the opposite. Because what exactly is best about immigrants who have criminal records or middle school educations or no ability to hold a job? The answer is there is nothing best about that. Immigrants like that might be nice people much more likely to burden the United States than benefit it, at least economically.
Harvard doesn&#8217;t admit students that can&#8217;t speak English. It says so right on their website. So why should our country? The left doesn&#8217;t want to answer questions like that or even have the conversation. &#8216;Shut up, racist!&#8217; Instead, they just declare the current system is great, no evidence necessary.
For the left, whether the country benefits is not the point. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar&#8211;&#8211;herself a symbol of America&#8217;s failed immigration system if there ever was one, someone who hates this country coming here at public expense&#8211;&#8211;spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself, and an end to all deportation programs. She demands open borders, the unlimited arrival of anyone who wants to come to America, whether they have anything to contribute or not, and by the way, you get to pay for it. And if you don&#8217;t want to, you&#8217;re a bigot.
Well you know what this is really about, of course. It&#8217;s not about civil rights, that&#8217;s a joke. It&#8217;s about money and power. Their money, their power. The left has aligned with business interests that profit from cheap obedient workers. Low-skilled immigrants have a harder time assimilating into the American mainstream. They stay poorer and learn English more slowly, they&#8217;re more likely to remain ethnic underclass, all of which makes them much more likely to vote Democratic long-term. That&#8217;s the point, obviously. Skilled immigrants might assimilate and become less reliable Democratic voters. They might even compete with the children of our ruling class, that&#8217;s not allowed.
</blockquote>

Tucker Carlson Rips Ilhan Omar: ‘Symbol Of America’s Failed Immigration System’

All the Democrats&#8217; threats subpoenas and votes for contempt are just payback for losing the election.
Lara Trump, senior advisor to the 2020 Trump campaign and wife of President Donald Trump&#8217;s son Eric, said on Fox News Thursday night that demanding Donald Trump Jr. testify before congress or face jail &#8220;is not going to make Hillary Clinton the president of the United States.&#8221;
Lara Trump told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on his nightly program, &#8220;Tucker Carlson Tonight,&#8221; that the special counsel investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia &#8220;is over,&#8221; and that Trump Jr. testified previously.
In September 2017, Trump Jr. <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Trump%20Jr%20Transcript_redacted.pdf">testified</a> before members of the Senate Judiciary Committee behind closed doors &#8212; for hours. He was asked repeatedly about the infamous Trump Tower meeting where he, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with alleged Russians (who actually had ties to Democrat opposition research firm Fusion GPS) to get &#8220;dirt&#8221; on Clinton. In the end, no &#8220;dirt&#8221; was provided, and the meeting &#8212; which now looks more like entrapment &#8212; resulted in nothing.
Now, nearly two years later, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) has sent a subpoena to Trump Jr., causing <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/443026-trump-jr-subpoena-sparks-internal-gop-battle">a rift</a> in the Republican party. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said Trump Jr. &#8220;ought to be put in jail&#8221; if he doesn&#8217;t comply with the subpoena.
Lara Trump scoffed at the notion.
&#8220;We know [collusion] did not happen,&#8221; she told Carlson. &#8220;Whatever they think they&#8217;re going to do is not going to change that. It&#8217;s not going to make Hillary Clinton the president of the United States like I know they all wanted so badly for so long.&#8221;
Lara Trump added that she was &#8220;shocked and appalled&#8221; that Burr, a senator from her home state of North Carolina, would do such a thing.
&#8220;This is harassment of our family, harassment of the president,&#8221; she said.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller finished his investigation in March, finding no evidence of collusion and not enough evidence to recommend a charge of obstruction. Attorney General William Barr opted not to charge for obstruction, since the decision then fell to him.
Since then (and really, even before), Democrats have demanded to see the evidence for themselves, no doubt so that they can use it against President Trump and justify their continued discussions of impeachment. Democrats currently have around 22 investigations opened into Trump, his business, his finances, his campaign, and his family &#8212; all fishing expeditions to get back at him for winning the presidency over Clinton (and maybe even as revenge for leaving their party and becoming a Republican).
Trump won the election; Hillary Clinton did not. Trump&#8217;s presidency has been succeeding even with the Russian investigation looming over his head. Now he&#8217;s been cleared, and Democrats aren&#8217;t happy. Neither, it would appear, are some Republicans.

Lara Trump Says Threatening Don Jr. With Jail Won’t ‘Make Hillary Clinton President’

Democratic Party

Donald Trump Jr.

Republican Party

Fox News&#8217; Tucker Carlson slammed <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46342/wolf-sheeps-clothing-pete-buttigieg-pretends-be-ryan-saavedra">far-left</a> Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg on Wednesday night over his religious attacks on Vice President Mike Pence, which members of the LGBT community have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46237/watch-ambassador-richard-grenell-unloads-pete-ryan-saavedra">called</a> a hate hoax similar to what Jussie Smollett pushed.
&#8220;In 2019, whining is power. Pete Buttigieg understands this,&#8221; Carlson said (transcript via <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-for-dems-whining-is-power-in-the-2020-race-just-ask-pete-buttigieg">Fox News</a>). &#8220;Buttigieg may be the least oppressed of all. Both his parents were college professors. He went to Harvard, and then to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. After that, Buttigieg spent three years at McKinsey. That&#8217;s where ruling class drones are taught the finer points of sucking up to corporate America. He got an &#8216;A&#8217; in that class.&#8221;
&#8220;Our system has been very good to Pete Buttigieg. If he&#8217;s a &#8216;victim,&#8217; who isn&#8217;t? The term has no meaning. So how does Buttigieg win his party&#8217;s victimhood olympics?&#8221; Carlson continued. &#8220;Simple: with the Mike Pence story. Pence was the governor of Indiana when Buttigieg became mayor of South Bend. As Buttigieg has suggested recently, this set the two on a collision course. Buttigieg is gay. Pence is a traditional Christian. Meaning he pines for the social structure of 12th century, and above all passionately hates gay people. How much does he hate them? Watch this explosive exchange from 2015, where Pence was asked directly about Buttigieg. You can see the rage in his eyes, the venom that flecks his lips. He looks dangerous. Brace yourself for this.&#8221;
Carlson then cut to a clip of Pence saying the following about Buttigieg: &#8220;I hold Mayor Buttigieg in the highest personal regard. We have a great working relationship. I see him as a dedicated public servant, and a patriot.&#8221;
&#8220;See that? Could you feel the hate?&#8221; Carlson continued. &#8220;&#8216;Highest personal regard.&#8217; In other words, &#8216;away from me, sinner! You are filthy and disgusting.&#8217; &#8216;Great working relationship,&#8217; says Pence. Sure. Among evangelicals, that&#8217;s code for, &#8216;Once I establish my theocracy, I will throw you in my dungeon and let you rot for eternity.&#8217; &#8216;Dedicated public servant. Patriot.&#8217; Oh please. Pence might as well have spit in Buttigieg&#8217;s face and called him a reprobate. It&#8217;s the same thing: gay bashing.&#8221;
&#8220;Buttigieg responded to attacks like these as you&#8217;d expect. He gave Governor Pence an &#8216;I Love South Bend&#8217; shirt and joined him on a fitness walk. Buttigieg wrote about it on Facebook at the time if you want to read the unnerving details. To this day, he seems traumatized by the experience. Buttigieg recently told a crowd in Austin to not, quote, &#8216;judge my state by our former governor.&#8217; He accused Pence of &#8216;social extremism&#8217; and dubbed him a &#8216;cheerleader of the porn star presidency.&#8217; On CNN, he suggested that even god disapproves of Mike Pence.&#8221;
Carlson then slammed Buttigieg for what he suggested is religious hypocrisy, saying, &#8220;He expresses his Christian faith by defending late-term abortion and relentlessly attacking people who&#8217;ve been kind to him. It&#8217;s more effective than talking about the city he leads. In 2015, South Bend had a higher murder almost the same as Chicago&#8217;s. Aggravated assaults more than tripled since Buttigieg became mayor. Rapes have nearly doubled. Buttigieg doesn&#8217;t want to talk about any of that. He wants to talk about the real victim here: himself.&#8221;
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sS0Q6QfuSVE" width="560"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Tucker Carlson Shreds Democrat Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg

While the mainstream media and Democrats rapidly shift their focus from the thoroughly debunked &#8220;collusion&#8221; narrative to Robert Mueller&#8217;s inconclusive findings on &#8220;obstruction,&#8221; President Trump has been busy celebrating what he and his lawyers have emphatically declared his complete exoneration: &#8220;no collusion, no obstruction.&#8221; Since the release of the Special Counsel&#8217;s final report, Trump&#8217;s activity online has been almost entirely focused on the report&#8217;s findings and analysis of those findings by media figures, particularly over at his favorite cable news network. He&#8217;s also made a point of pushing back on some of the &#8220;bullsh**&#8221; claims in the &#8220;Crazy Mueller Report.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s first post-Mueller report tweet, issued as Barr was giving his press conference, was met with a rebuke from HBO: &#8220;No collusion. No obstruction. For the haters and the radical left Democrats: Game Over,&#8221; reads the &#8220;Game of Thrones&#8221;-themed meme. Trump chose to pin that one to the top of his feed.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://t.co/222atp7wuB">pic.twitter.com/222atp7wuB</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118876219381026818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Trump then posted a &#8220;no collusion, no obstruction&#8221;-themed video:
<div class="embed tweet"></div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As I have been saying all along, NO COLLUSION &#8211; NO OBSTRUCTION! <a href="https://t.co/BnMB5mvHAM">pic.twitter.com/BnMB5mvHAM</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118921900858793985?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Thursday afternoon, Trump tweeted the first of a series of quotes from media figures on the Right (tweets below).
&#8220;&#8216;Donald Trump was being framed, he fought back. That is not Obstruction,'&#8221; Trump wrote, citing Fox News&#8217; Jesse Watters. &#8220;I had the right to end the whole Witch Hunt if I wanted,&#8221; the president added. &#8220;I could have fired everyone, including Mueller, if I wanted. I chose not to. I had the RIGHT to use Executive Privilege. I didn&#8217;t!&#8221;
Thursday evening, Trump pointed out that the Russian election meddling all took place while Barack Obama was president. &#8220;Anything the Russians did concerning the 2016 Election was done while Obama was President. He was told about it and did nothing! Most importantly, the vote was not affected,&#8221; wrote Trump.
He then quoted another Fox News host, Martha MacCallum, pushing back on the &#8220;obstruction&#8221; narrative: &#8220;When there is not an underlying crime with regard to Collusion (in fact, the whole thing was a made up fraud), it is difficult to say that someone is obstructing something. There was no underlying crime.&#8221;
Trump next highlighted comments by Tucker Carlson, who issued a blistering rebuke of the media on his show Thursday night. &#8220;&#8216;If dozens of Federal prosecutors spent two years trying to charge you with a crime, and found they couldn&#8217;t, it would mean there wasn&#8217;t any evidence you did it &#8212; and that&#8217;s what happened here &#8212; that&#8217;s what we just learned from the Mueller Report,'&#8221; Trump wrote, quoting Carlson. &#8220;&#8216;The Mueller Report is perhaps the single most humiliating thing that has ever happened to the White House Press in the history of this Country. They know they lied&#8230;Many reporters lied about Russia Collusion and so much more. Clapper &amp; Brennan, all lies.'&#8221;
The president followed that pair of posts by retweeting a comment by The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s Kimberly Strassel: &#8220;Jump to &#8216;where the Mueller team lists its &#8216;prosecution and declination&#8217; decisions . . . try not to picture Mueller &#8216;pit bull&#8217; prosecutor Andrew Weissmann collapsed under mountains of federal statutes after his two-year hunt to find one that applied.'&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Jump to &#8220;where the Mueller team lists its &#8216;prosecution and declination&#8217; decisions . . . try not to picture Mueller &#8216;pit bull&#8217; prosecutor Andrew Weissmann collapsed under mountains of federal statutes after his two-year hunt to find one that applied.&#8221; 
<a href="https://t.co/CNyqrPxFL8">https://t.co/CNyqrPxFL8</a>
&#8212; Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) <a href="https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1119039985431113728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;Kimberley Strassel should get the Pulitzer,&#8221; Trump wrote. &#8220;She is a treasure (and I don&#8217;t know her) who correctly called the Russia Hoax right from the start! Others who were soooo wrong will get the Prize. Fake News!&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Crazy Mueller Report&#8221; tweets continued Friday morning, with Trump defending his decision not to testify and dismissing some of the statements made about him in the report as &#8220;total bullsh**&#8221; that were &#8220;given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad).&#8221;
&#8220;Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated &amp; totally untrue,&#8221; he tweeted. &#8220;Watch out for people that take so-called &#8216;notes,&#8217; when the notes never existed until needed. Because I never agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the &#8216;Report&#8217; about me, some of which are total bullsh** &amp; only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a&#8230;&#8221; (No follow-up tweet has since been posted.)
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46174/watch-tucker-carlson-mueller-report-single-most-james-barrett">WATCH: Tucker Carlson: Mueller Report &#8216;Single Most Humiliating Thing That Has Ever Happened To The White House Press&#8217;</a>
Trump&#8217;s tweets below:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;Donald Trump was being framed, he fought back. That is not Obstruction.&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/JesseBWatters?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JesseBWatters</a> I had the right to end the whole Witch Hunt if I wanted. I could have fired everyone, including Mueller, if I wanted. I chose not to. I had the RIGHT to use Executive Privilege. I didn&#8217;t!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118990550235877376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Anything the Russians did concerning the 2016 Election was done while Obama was President. He was told about it and did nothing! Most importantly, the vote was not affected.
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119019875203153921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
When there is not an underlying crime with regard to Collusion (in fact, the whole thing was a made up fraud), it is difficult to say that someone is obstructing something. There was no underlying crime.&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/marthamaccallum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@marthamaccallum</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNews</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119024554431713280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;If dozens of Federal prosecutors spent two years trying to charge you with a crime, and found they couldn&#8217;t, it would mean there wasn&#8217;t any evidence you did it &#8211; and that&#8217;s what happened here &#8211; that&#8217;s what we just learned from the Mueller Report.&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TuckerCarlson</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119034770221088768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;The Mueller Report is perhaps the single most humiliating thing that has ever happened to the White House Press in the history of this Country. They know they lied&#8230;Many reporters lied about Russia Collusion and so much more. Clapper &amp; Brennan, all lies&#8221; <a href="https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TuckerCarlson</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119037461190066176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kimberley Strassel should get the Pulitzer. She is a treasure (and I don&#8217;t know her) who correctly called the Russia Hoax right from the start! Others who were soooo wrong will get the Prize. Fake News! <a href="https://t.co/TJJPY5MM6X">https://t.co/TJJPY5MM6X</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119066791161077760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Kimberley Strassel should get the Pulitzer. She is a treasure (and I don&#8217;t know her) who correctly called the Russia Hoax right from the start! Others who were soooo wrong will get the Prize. Fake News! <a href="https://t.co/TJJPY5MM6X">https://t.co/TJJPY5MM6X</a>
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119066791161077760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated &amp; totally untrue. Watch out for people that take so-called &#8220;notes,&#8221; when the notes never existed until needed. Because I never&#8230;.
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119207303700471809?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8230;agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the &#8220;Report&#8221; about me, some of which are total bullshit &amp; only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a&#8230;
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119211274712375297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 19, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>

Menu