Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category

Saturday night, CNN’s elitist attitude was on full display. It was a disgusting thing. Unfortunately, it isn’t a surprising thing. What Don Lemon’s guests said is comparable to Hillary’s basket of deplorables statement. Let’s remember that oldie-but-goodie:

Notice how loud the laughter got when she said that. That isn’t the sound of approval. That’s the sound of derision. While I refuse to think that that’s typical of all Democrats, I’m totally confident that significant portions of Democrats think that way about Republicans. Here’s what many CNN viewers think of Trump’s supporters:

If Republicans and thoughtful independents need motivation to vote, play that video to those would-be voters. Ask yourself this question; would you want these people in charge of anything? I don’t.

It’s been less than 12 hours since Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Chief Impeachment Manager, closed by saying “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ I don’t know if that’s true.” Since then, Schiff has rightfully been the subject of GOP vitriol.

First, Schiff earned that vitriol. After using that line, Schiff then continued, saying “But I was struck by the irony of the idea — when we’re talking about a president who would make himself a monarch that whoever that was would use the terminology of a penalty that was imposed by a monarch.” Schiff used that line because it fit the image he’s trying to paint of President Trump.

Next, just because he was wrong in using that line doesn’t mean he’s the only person worthy of criticism. Nancy Cordes, the CBS reporter who broke the story, should be criticized, too. This segment should never have gotten published:

Cordes’ reporting was discredited virtually immediately:

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, considered another key Republican vote, agreed with Murkowski. “Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration,” she told reporters.

In other words, this ‘reporting’ is BS. This follows a pattern. Who is the Trump confidant? Nobody knows because that’s just included in the reporting.

Schiff’s legacy is forever tarnished. Prior to last night, the biggest part of his legacy was telling Chuck Todd that he had seen “evidence that was stronger than circumstantial” that President Trump had colluded with Russia. From this point forward, “head on a pike” will be Schiff’s legacy.

Jim Geraghty’s article on Sen. Klobuchar doesn’t hide the things that the Twin Cities press has ignored for years. In his article, Geraghty writes that “If you squint, you can make the “Klobuchar’s getting hot at the right time” argument, as the latest Monmouth poll has her at 8 percentage points, her second-highest number yet. Except … getting any delegates out of Iowa requires getting 15 percent of the vote. Klobuchar needs to more or less double her current support to walk out of the state with any delegates.”

Then Geraghty cuts to the heart of Sen. Klobuchar’s problem, saying “Klobuchar wasn’t that well-known when the race began; it was a crowded field; her debate performances ranged from okay to easily forgotten; she’s not the choice of the party establishment or the progressive grassroots, she doesn’t have the resources to blanket the airwaves the way Bloomberg and Steyer can … she’s a perfectly fine, almost generic Democratic candidate in a field that was bursting with more exciting options.”

Don’t mistake Sen. Klobuchar’s lack of presence as proof that she’s a moderate Democrat. That’s BS. She thought that Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were extremists. In fact, she thought that Kavanaugh didn’t deserve the presumption of innocence. On the other hand, she thought that Sonia Sotomayor was a centrist. Klobuchar voted for the ACA, which destroyed Minnesota’s health care system but voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which has produced the strongest economy in the last 20 years. That doesn’t sound too bright, does it?

While she’s been protected by the Twin Cities media, she’s been portrayed as a moderate/centrist. Clearly, that isn’t accurate. While she isn’t as far left as Ilhan Omar or Keith Ellison, her policies are more than a little leftist. On her campaign website, Klobuchar has a page titled a safer world. On the subject of foreign policy, she says:

Amy believes that we need to stand strong, and consistently, with our allies and that we must respect our frontline troops, diplomats and intelligence officers, who are out there every day risking their lives for our country, and deserve better than foreign policy by tweet. She would invest in diplomacy and rebuild the State Department and modernize our military to stay one step ahead of China and Russia, including with serious investments in cybersecurity.

This past week, President Trump has convinced the British, French and Germans to force Iran’s mullahs back into compliance with the JCPOA. Next, President Trump has rebuilt the military the past 3 years, too. Third, President Trump has seen to it that the troops have gotten pay raises the past 2 years. Fourth, rebuilding the State Department, aka the Deep State, is downright stupid. The last thing we need are ‘diplomats’ who think it’s their job to undermine a president they think isn’t qualified. Finally, President Trump, working with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have significantly upgraded our cybersecurity.

In other words, the things Sen. Klobuchar says she’d do are things that President Trump has already done. This is a perfect example of how the Twin Cities media protect St. Amy of Hennepin County:

Sen. Klobuchar is kinda right in that tensions are rising in Iran. It’s just that the pressure on Iran is increasing. Tuesday was a major breakthrough for US-British diplomacy. Thanks in large part to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s behind-the-scenes work, we’re on the verge of getting Iran back to the negotiating table where a proper treaty will get negotiated. When the JCPOA was negotiated, Iran didn’t have a worry in the world. Now, 5 years later, Iran’s mullahs are worried about students protesting, Iran’s economy is in virtual freefall and the international community is exerting maximum pressure on the regime.

During his antiwar diatribe, Tucker Carlson highlighted his one-track mind with regard to the Middle East. At one point, Carlson asked “Why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our own country in favor of jumping into another quagmire from which there is no obvious exit?” Then he asked “If we’re still in Afghanistan 19 sad years later, what makes us think there’s a quick way out of Iran?”

Of course, we aren’t in Iran. That doesn’t matter to Carlson. The great military strategist figured that out earlier in his monologue, saying “It is no exaggeration to say that by the next time this show airs, we could be engaged in a conflict, a real conflict with Iran.”

Wow. Saying that it isn’t an exaggeration that the US might be at war with Iran by Monday morning is foolish. It’s nothing except an exaggeration. How does Carlson get away saying stupid things like this? Talk to Fox management about that. I haven’t figured that one out. At times, he can be a thoughtful commentator. Far too often, though, he’s sounded like a CODEPINK antiwar lunatic. This is one of those times.

Let’s deconstruct Carlson’s arguments. It won’t take long since they’re such flimsy arguments. We aren’t ignoring the decline of our own country. Democrats are. They haven’t provided a serious solution to our nation’s problems since retaking the majority in the House. President Trump and Senate Republicans have put forth lots of proposals that would fix things like the opioid epidemic and illegal immigration.

When Carlson gets into his rants, he ignores the Trump administration’s already lengthy list of accomplishments, too. When he rants, he’s talking about what happened during the Obama and Bush administrations. Apparently, he hasn’t noticed that things have changed since President Trump got to Washington.

Next, insinuating that we’re on the verge of war is either dishonesty or stupidity. I don’t think Carlson is stupid so that leaves us with the likelihood that he’s utterly dishonest. Later, Carlson ripped into Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, who put out a statement saying that “This is very simple: Gen. Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who killed Americans.” Carlson then admitted that Sen. Sasse’s “statement is essentially true.” Rather than fleshing that out, Carlson pivoted to strawman arguments that Mexican drug cartels and the Chinese have killed lots of Americans with drugs, then flippantly saying “not that anybody in power cares” about those deaths.

Then Carlson mentioned that Sen. Sasse is a former consultant, whatever that means. Carlson is a former CNN personality. Does that mean he’s ill-suited for Fox? I think he’s far better suited to be one of CNN’s clowns than to be one of FNC’s hosts.

I wasn’t a big fan of Bill O’Reilly. Still, I’d welcome him back to FNC over this one-trick (antiwar) pony any day of the week. It’s time for FNC to cut its losses and put in someone who actually thinks things through before ranting.

Finally, Carlson said that there are lots of bad guys out there, then asking if we should kill all of them while we’re at it. That’s oversimplification on steroids. Gen. Soleimani wasn’t just a bad guy. He’s the mastermind behind destabilizing an entire region of the world while spreading terrorism and launching Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He supplied Shi’ite militias in Iraq with IEDs and other weapons that were used to kill Americans.

Whatever you think of the Iraq War, it’s disgusting to think, as Carlson apparently does, that these soldiers were expendable because they followed a president’s orders. Personally, it’s one thing to question the wisdom of going to war. It’s quite another to say that it’s ok to kill US soldiers in the line of duty.

Listening to CNN isn’t wise in any situation. Listening to CNN talk about impeachment is the ultimate in foolishness. CNN is foolish because it’s citing former Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake as a source.

According to Sen. Flake, “at least 35 would do so if they were allowed to cast their ballots in secret.” Considering the fact that Sen. Flake hates President Trump and has said outrageous things about President Trump, Sen. Flake is the least reliable source other than an anonymous source.

Let’s challenge that line of thinking. Imagine a situation where nobody knew who voted to convict President Trump. Then picture Trump supporters realizing that over half of GOP senators had just voted to convict him without taking accountability. How many Republicans would get primaried and defeated this year?

The ‘wimp factor’ for removing a president without admitting which senator voted for or against conviction would be high. Trump supporters would be irate if the Senate voted to convict President Trump by secret ballot. It’s difficult to picture something more typical of the Swamp. That means those political careers would be over whether they voted to convict or not.

Hamilton went further and argued that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” For this reason, he believed the Senate would be the appropriate venue to hold a trial for impeachment, with the belief that senators would act as an impartial jury not swayed by public opinion or one’s allegiance to a candidate or party.

It isn’t that Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson trusted senators to be impartial. They put their trust in requiring a two-third’s majority in the Senate. The supermajority was the key because a politician is still a politician.

Trusting Jeff Flake’s opinion on President Trump is foolish. It isn’t as foolish as trusting Adam Schiff but it isn’t wise, either.

It’s easy to name the Democrats’ corrupt impeachment of President Trump as 2019’s Story of the Year. There were other stories that deserve recognition but this story has all the elements of a heartbreaking story of corruption, media bias, partisanship at its worst and civil rights abuses. First, this story exemplifies partisanship at its worst. Democrats have literally tried impeaching President Trump since the morning after his election. Mark Zaid, the faux whistle-blower’s attorney, posted this tweet 10 days after President Trump’s inauguration:

This wasn’t a solemn event, as Ms. Pelosi insisted. This was the culmination of 3 years of deceit and corruption:

We had Chairman Schiff acting as the faux whistle-blower’s defense attorney, protecting the faux whistle-blower’s anonymity during public committee hearings. When Schiff wasn’t protecting the faux whistle-blower’s anonymity, he was violating President Trump’s civil rights by preventing President Trump’s legal team from representing him during the deposition phase. Schiff also violated President Trump’s civil rights when he refused to let Republicans call witnesses in defense of President Trump.

The impeachment hearings were filled with partisanship, too. This is what partisanship looks like:

Chairman Nadler was required by House rules to schedule a minority hearing day. That didn’t happen. One day of hearings was dedicated to listen to 3 Democrat activists masquerading as law school professors argue with Prof. Jonathan Turley about whether the evidence submitted by Democrats was sufficient for impeachment. Another hearing was dedicated to congressmen and women essentially making closing statements.

The hearings throughout ‘featured’ (I use that term exceptionally loosely) the worst in media bias. Day after day, the media breathlessly insisted that that day’s witness provided “bombshell” testimony. Night-after-night, the bombshell didn’t detonate. In instance-after-instance, the provocative statements in the witnesses’ opening statements turned into dud during cross-examination. Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Ambassador Sondland was the nastiest cross-examination I’ve ever seen:

That’s the personification of media bias and Adam Schiff’s corruption. Each day, networks like CNN and MSNBC and programs like the Maddow Report and Meet the Press Weekdays omitted the part about the exculpatory evidence. That’s why President Trump’s accusations of the Fake News Media resonates. People of integrity admit that CNN and shows like Rachel Maddow’s are corrupt.

They’ve carved out a niche, albeit a limited niche, that serves a political purpose in the Democrats’ quest for power. There was a time when Democrats cared about people’s civil rights. That Democrat Party, apart from Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz is history. That Democrat Party doesn’t exist.

Impeachment is 2019’s Story of the Year but for all the wrong reasons. Impeaching President Trump with hearsay testimony while violating President Trump’s civil rights is awful. Impeaching him while Democrats displayed the nastiest partisanship of this century is worst. Impeaching President Trump with the enthusiastic assistance of the most corrupt media of our lifetimes is a trifecta Democrats should be ashamed of.

David Gergen’s op-ed also serves as an incomplete history lesson. Gergen starts off, saying “As the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday, he addressed a rally in Michigan and said, “By the way, it doesn’t really feel like we’re being impeached.” In that moment, the difference between Trump and former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton became starkly clear. It’s clear that Nixon and Clinton behaved very differently from Trump when faced with impeachment proceedings that clouded their presidencies. During their respective impeachment inquiries, both Nixon and Clinton ultimately cooperated with authorities. While Nixon resisted turning over information, he did yield to public pressure and let key witnesses testify. And he eventually turned over the infamous Watergate tapes when ordered by the Supreme Court. Clinton, on the other hand, agreed to testify after establishing predetermined conditions.”

After that, things get incomplete. Gergen stated “[Trump’s] supporters have argued that the evidence supporting Trump’s impeachment is thin, never acknowledging it might well be bolstered if the President cooperated.” Left unsaid is that Pelosi’s Democrats thought that the documents and testimony weren’t important enough to fight for in court. I won’t take seriously testimony and documents that Democrats didn’t fight for.

To top it off, Trump’s comments characterizing impeachment as a “hoax” in the scorching letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, along with his defiant performance at the rally in Michigan make clear he is anything but contrite.

Considering the fact that the investigation took less than 6 weeks from the start of the first report of a whistleblower report to the House voting on 2 articles of impeachment, I can’t see how that’s anything except shoddy workmanship. The fact that Sen. Schumer wants additional witnesses to strengthen a weak case identifies this impeachment inquiry as not being serious.

Compare that with the Watergate investigation timeline. It starts with a Washington Post article on August 1, 1972. It essentially culminated on July 27-30, 1974 when the “House Judiciary Committee passes three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, misuse of power and contempt of Congress. By approving the charges, the committee sent the impeachment to the floor for a full House vote, but it never occurred.”

When Bill Clinton was impeached, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr said that Clinton was guilty of committing multiple crimes. Nixon committed multiple crimes, too. What’s left unsaid in Gergen’s op-ed is that President Trump is the first president impeached who wasn’t charged with committing a crime. Further, what isn’t said in Gergen’s op-ed is that the only evidence presented to the Impeachment Committee was either exculpatory or hearsay.

No, this is a President who is likely to lash out, seek revenge, and continue abusing the powers of his office. And if he is acquitted, and if his behavior thus far is any indication, Trump is bound to feel vindicated and strengthened by the support of his followers.

A person that’s impeached with hearsay testimony has the right to feel vindicated. There isn’t a court in this nation that should stand for people getting convicted on hearsay testimony. Next time, Mr. Gergen, don’t leave out important details like the ones you omitted this time. This interview says it all:

“The things that the Democrats couldn’t get because of the stonewall, the documents they couldn’t get, the witnesses they couldn’t get, you know, I think it strengthens their case.”

That’s rather provocative language. The so-called stonewall is nothing more than President Trump exercising his executive privilege rights. If Democrats wanted that testimony and those documents, there was a legal path to get them. That’s to file a lawsuit to compel the testimony. Democrats didn’t do that because, in their words, that’d take too much time. That’s a political judgment. That isn’t a legal judgment.

Jessica Tarlov’s op-ed criticizes Republicans for blindly supporting President Trump. That’s rich considering the fact that supporting the Pelosi-Nadler-Schiff trifecta is a profile in blind partisanship.

In her op-ed Ms. Tarlov writes “I can’t seem to stop paying attention and am oftentimes overwhelmed by the gravity of what we’re witnessing. Though it’s my job to pay attention, the dynamics of this story, from the president’s abuse of power, to the geopolitics, to the personal stories of those who have testified, would draw anyone in.”

First, what gravity is she talking about? The first impeachment hearing in Nadler’s Judiciary Committee featured 3 Democrat activists masquerading as law professors and a real law professor. The highlight of that hearing was Jonathan Turley admonishing the Democrats on the Committee for abusing their power:

First, during the Impeachment Committee hearings, aka the Schiff Show, Democrats called one hearsay testifier after another. Marie Yovanovitch, the Democrats’ third hearsay witness, was fired 3 months before the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. What she added to the hearing is still a mystery. Lt. Col. Vindman listened to the call. After the call, he voiced some concern to his boss. His boss, in turn, dismissed his concern.

Legal experts are still waiting for the Democrats’ first fact witness. In fact, Democrats didn’t call a single fact witness during the Judiciary Committee’s hearings. Again, I ask “what gravity”? Is Ms. Tarlov insisting that Democrats impeach President Trump for doing more to help Ukraine militarily than President Obama did? President Trump sold Ukraine lethal defensive weapons in the form of Javelin anti-tank missiles. By comparison, President Obama shipped Ukraine blankets and meals-ready-to-eat, aka MREs.

Our reality TV president is now the subject of a reality TV impeachment filled with dramatic twists and turns – and the show isn’t over yet. The evidence in favor of impeachment seems overwhelming to me.

Ms. Tarlov, what evidence are you talking about? The only testimony from firsthand witnesses favors President Trump. Ambassador Sondland, who actually spoke with President Trump, said this on cross-examination:

Presumptions, Ms. Tarlov, aren’t evidence. This isn’t evidence, either:

For those of you who, like me, suffered multiple whiplash injuries in that exchange, here’s the transcript:

Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yermak on Sept 1, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence’s visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.

That’s from Ambassador Sondland’s amended deposition. Why that’s considered a clarification is baffling. That isn’t clarification. That’s confusion. Either way, it isn’t evidence. It’s hearsay on steroids.

In my mind, it’s obvious that Trump threatened the president of Ukraine to demand a political favor and improperly held back $391 million in desperately needed military aid approved by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. Trump eventually gave Ukraine the money – but only after a whistleblower exposed the president’s improper conduct.

What’s in Ms. Tarlov’s mind is difficult to determine. Freud might not be able to figure that out. Suppositions aren’t proof. Without emails or texts between the 2 principles, Ms. Tarlov’s statements are rubbish.

Without legitimate, verifiable proof, Democrats don’t have a case. That isn’t just an opinion. It’s Professor Turley’s expert opinion:

This is worth examining:

“But this is certainly the thinnest of the modern record. If you take a look at the size of the record of Clinton and Nixon, they were massive in comparison to this, which is almost wafer thin in comparison,” Turley said.

“There’s a difference between requesting investigations and a quid pro quo. You need to stick the landing on the quid pro quo. You need to get the evidence to support it. It might be out there, I don’t know. But it’s not in this record,” Turley said.

Suffice it to say that Ms. Tarlov’s op-ed didn’t stick the landing.

The Democrats’ smear campaign isn’t stopping. Instead, it’s hitting new lows. CNN published a story insisting that House Impeachment Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes had visited Ukraine to dig up dirt on the Biden family. The CNN article opens by saying “(CNN)A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden. The attorney, Joseph A. Bondy, represents Lev Parnas, the recently indicted Soviet-born American who worked with Giuliani to push claims of Democratic corruption in Ukraine. Bondy said that Parnas was told directly by the former Ukrainian official that he met last year in Vienna with Rep. Devin Nunes.” It continues, saying “Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,’ said Bondy.”

Talk about ironclad hearsay. I’m impressed. Not. This is worthless. It wouldn’t be admitted in a court of law. That isn’t the worst of it, though. This is:

CNN is running a major story that Devin Nunes met with a Ukrainian prosecutor on the word of a defense attorney whose client is facing serious charges? They’re publishing the article without seeing the texts? They’re just taking the defense attorney’s word without verification?

It’s difficult to picture a reporter being that gullible. Did she just throw out everything she learned in Journalism 101? That’s what it looks like.

“For all of the last three years, including the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax, this is the mother of all fake news stories. There is not one bigger than this,” Nunes said. “And so next week, we are going to take them to court. They will have an opportunity to come to court so that we can subpoena each other. We can get discovery. We can set people down for depositions. And I have a bet for you, Sean. CNN and The Daily Beast are going to run for cover. They’re going to fight this. They’re not going to show up in court. They’re not going to accept service.”

Devin Nunes has been maligned by the MSM for years. They’ve insisted that he’s blindly running interference for the Trump administration. What the MSM fails to admit is that, at least once a month, Nunes’ claims are proven right. It’s time CNN and the Daily Beast are held accountable.

Last week, the hate crimes discussion that was cancelled 2 months ago was finally held. According to this SCTimes article, “[the] panel discussing hate crimes was held after security concerns led to a two-month delay at St. Cloud State University Wednesday at the Miller Center Auditorium.” Actually, there weren’t any legitimate security concerns, as I’ve written about here.

The myth of security concerns was likely started by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, aka MDHR. Over 3 hours after the event had gotten cancelled, MDHR issued a statement saying “Hate is not a value in St. Cloud or in any part of our state. Our community deserves better,” says MDHR Commissioner Rebecca Lucero. “I am heartbroken by the attempts to silence discussion on hate crimes. The goal of the forum was to discuss the community we want to create. One that is full of dignity and joy.”

The event was officially announced as cancelled at 1:16 pm. The protesters didn’t show up until after 2:00 pm. Further, the St. Cloud Times wrote “despite the ‘public safety concern’ cited by the human rights department, St. Cloud Assistant Police Chief Jeff Oxton said Wednesday the department received no reports of threats related to the event.

The panel was originally planned to be held Sept. 18 at the St. Cloud Library, but was canceled “due to safety concerns,” according to a release from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

On that day, demonstrators with the Freedom Speaks Coalition protested the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ involvement. On their website, the group claims that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is affiliated with terrorist organizations.

Shame on the Times for soft-pedaling that. It isn’t a claim. It’s a finding of fact from “the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation and its former officials.”

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich “included trial transcripts and exhibits ‘which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995.'”

CAIR’s reputation as a Muslim civil rights organization is tarnished:

CAIR wasn’t founded after 9/11. It was started in the 1990s. It’s difficult to take CAIR seriously an organization that’s promoted by propagandists like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.