Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Agenda Media category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Agenda Media’ Category

This NY Times article has a loose affiliation with the truth. Saying that it’s slanted is understatement. Like much of its political ‘reporting’, the article has an obvious agenda. That agenda is intended to vilify President Trump and his supporters. (Shocking, I know, but it’s pretty obvious.)

Having known Dr. Palmer for almost 15 years, I won’t hide my contempt for the NY Times hit piece. Yes, it’s safe to say that that last sentence meant that the gloves just came off. The NY Times’ article pretends to be an authority on John Palmer. That’s laughable. Becoming an authority on Dr. Palmer takes more than the afternoon that the NY Times spent on the interview.

It’s pretty obvious that the NY Times’ article was intended to be a hit piece. Why else would they send a reporter and a photographer to St. Cloud, MN? This wasn’t meant to provide their readers with information. This was meant to slant opinions against Trump supporters. That’s apparent because of what the Times reporter quoted and what he didn’t quote.

For instance, the ‘reporter’ wrote “Mr. Palmer said at a recent meeting he viewed them as innately less intelligent than the ‘typical’ American citizen, as well as a threat.” The NY Times’ reporter interprets Dr. Palmer as saying that Somalis as being “less intelligent” than white Americans.

The fact that the NY Times didn’t quote Dr. Palmer directly is proof that they cut corners. They have the transcript or something close to it. How else would they be able to quote Dr. Palmer saying someone is “less intelligent”?

“The very word ‘Islamophobia’ is a false narrative,” Mr. Palmer, 70, said. “A phobia is an irrational fear.” Raising his voice, he added, “An irrational fear! There are many reasons we are not being irrational.”

In this predominantly white region of central Minnesota, the influx of Somalis, most of whom are Muslim, has spurred the sort of demographic and cultural shifts that President Trump and right-wing conservatives have stoked fears about for years. The resettlement has divided many politically active residents of St. Cloud, with some saying they welcome the migrants.

Newt Gingrich famously said that the United States isn’t a multi-cultural nation, that it’s multi-ethnic. He’s right. As a St. Cloud citizen, I haven’t seen much proof that suggests that the Somali refugees are interested in adopting the principles of the US Constitution. I’ve seen plenty of proof that says Somali refugees receive preferential treatment from St. Cloud law enforcement and other parts of the government.

Dave Kleis, the mayor of St. Cloud and a longtime Republican who now identifies as an independent, has voiced support for the resettlement program, but he has also drawn criticism for not forcefully denouncing groups like C-Cubed, which he refused to discuss in an interview.

It isn’t surprising that Kleis identifies as an independent. The reality is that he’s closer to a Libertarian than anything else. Kleis hasn’t shown leadership on the resettlement issue because he isn’t a leader. He’s argued, incorrectly, that refugee resettlement is a federal issue.

That’s partially true. It’s indisputable that the federal government sets naturalization policy. What’s equally indisputable is the fact that the Refugee Act of 1980 gives city government a role in the process, too:

The Director and the Federal agency administering subsection (b)(1) shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local governments and private nonprofit voluntary agencies concerning the sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.

(B)The Director shall develop and implement, in consultation with representatives of voluntary agencies and State and local governments, policies and strategies for the placement and resettlement of refugees within the United States.

Kleis insists that this part of US Statutes doesn’t exist. Isn’t it interesting that the people who insist on the government enforce existing laws are getting called Islamophobic while those that ignore the law are considered enlightened? One of those enlightened souls is St. Cloud State President Robbyn Wacker:


Listen to the loaded language in the NY Times’ article:

Two years ago in St. Cloud, Jeff Johnson, a city councilman, introduced a resolution that would temporarily halt refugee resettlement until a study of its economic impact was completed. The idea arose, Mr. Johnson said, after he spoke by phone with officials from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, an anti-immigration firm that has gained influence in the Trump era. The resolution was defeated, but its introduction caused significant uproar in St. Cloud, and pushed some residents to form or join opposing community groups.

What a crock of BS. CIS isn’t anti-immigration. It’s anti-illegal immigration. Notice how the NY Times conflates the 2 things as though they were the same thing? These aren’t idiots. They’re intentionally trying to put people like Dr. Palmer and Trump supporters on the defensive. Good luck with that.

The NY Times will undoubtedly use this hit piece to influence voters in their blatant attempt to defeat President Trump. The truth is that there’s a rational basis for distrusting the refugee resettlement program. Part of that rational basis is financial. Another part of that rational basis is religious. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen in St. Cloud, the biggest rational basis for opposing this program is because it’s establishing a 2-tiered system of laws.

I’m not talking about imposing Sharia. I’m talking about health inspections of Somali restaurants getting bypassed. I’m talking about citizens near Lake George calling in neighborhood violence, only to have the police show up 45 minutes later. (For those not familiar with St. Cloud, the SCPD station house is less than 2 miles away from Lake George. There’s no way it should take law enforcement 45 minutes to show up.)

I’ll finish by asking this simple question: does this sound like equal application of the law?

There’s no polite way of saying this so I won’t try. Tucker Carlson’s newfound notoriety has exposed his stupidity. His latest bout with stupidity came Friday night when he accused John Bolton of being a “bureaucratic tapeworm” who is pushing President Trump into war with Iran.

In his opening monologue, Carlson played “a clip of Trump explaining his rationale, that killing upwards of 150 people would not have been a ‘proportionate’ response to the fact that Iran took down an unmanned drone, Carlson lamented that this ‘most basic of all questions’ is ‘too rarely asked by our leaders contemplating war.'”

Carlson’s instinct is to believe that any use of the US military will automatically lead to full-scale war. That type of thinking isn’t just stupid. It’s dangerous. First, there never was a plan to introduce ground troops into this fiasco. Next, there still is a need to send a message to Iran, NoKo, Russia and China that the Trump administration isn’t dovish like the Obama administration.

If Carlson thinks that killing 150 IRGC troops is too hawkish, then he’s as dovish as a Democrat. Should the US do nothing while Iran blows up oil tankers and shoots down US drones? We took that approach starting in 1979. When 9/11 happened, someone told Mayor Giuliani that al-Qa’ida had declared war on the US. Mayor Giuliani’s reply was that Iran had been at war with us since 1979 but that we weren’t at war with them.

President Clinton’s ‘strategy’ of appeasement, history shows, is what led Osama bin Laden to conclude that the US was a paper tiger:

After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops, and collected other troops from around the world-5,000 from Pakistan, 5,000 from India, 5,000 from Bangladesh, 5,000 from Egypt, Senegal, and others like Saudi Arabia. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.

I’m not implying that Carlson is a coward. I’m stating that he’s an idiot. If he thinks that we should avoid war at all costs, which is what he’s said for the better part of a year, then we can’t let people like Tucker influence foreign policy.

Though the strike would have been “disproportionate,” the “entire point,” Tucker opined, was to lead to a “wider conflict” because “policy makers in Washington crave a war with Iran.”

There’s no proof that supports Tucker’s opinion but, in his mind, it’s Gospel fact. Just like when I ridicule other liberals about their wild accusations, I’d ask Carlson what his proof is for his wild accusations.

If I won’t let John Brennan, Adam Schiff or Jerry Nadler escape without providing proof for their wild accusations, why should I let Carlson off the hook without proof for his wild accusations?

Does Carlson understand the difference between full-scale war and a one-time military strike? He should. I’m just not certain he knows. It’s frightening to hear Carlson accuse the US of escalating the situation in Iran. The only other idiot who’d think that would be Dennis Kucinich. The US asked Japanese PM Abe to travel to Iran to offer the Iranians the opportunity to talk peace with President Trump.

Iran’s response was to blow up a Japanese oil freighter while the Japanese PM was in Iran. So much for the theory that the US escalated this tense situation to the brink of war. So much for Carlson’s credibility. Carlson is a low-talent provocateur. He isn’t the intellectual he pretends to be.

This AP article is proof positive that the AP is a charter member of the Agenda Media. It’s proof that the AP is part of the Media Wing of the Democrat Party.

I lost all remaining respect for the AP when they wrote “President Donald Trump jabbed at the press and poked the political establishment he ran against in 2016 as he kicked off his reelection campaign with a grievance-filled rally focused more on settling scores than laying out his agenda for a possible second term.”

I watched the entire speech, then wrote about it here and here. The crowd started gathering 40+ hours before the event. It’s worth noting that 150,000 RSVPs were received for an event that held 25,000 people indoors and another 50,000+ outdoors in the rain.

It defies logic to think that 75,000+ people stood out in the rain at least part of the day waiting to hear a president deliver a “grievance-filled” speech that ran 75 minutes. Further, it’s apparent that this AP idiot didn’t watch the speech. President Trump rattled off an impressive list of accomplishments, from the renegotiated treaties that he’s worked on to the tax cuts and regulations that saved the energy industry to rebuilding the manufacturing industries to filling the courts with highly qualified judges (in record numbers) to prison reform to signing ‘Right-to-Try’ legislation to signing VA reform that gives VA patients the ability to see a clinic if the VA hospital doesn’t fit them into their not-so-busy schedule.

Other than that lengthy list of accomplishments, President Trump’s speech was pretty much “grievance-filled.” Then there’s this:

“A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for the rise of radical socialism and the destruction of the American dream,” he said. Trump made only passing mention of any of the Democrats running to replace him even as he tossed out “radical” and “unhinged” to describe the rival party.

Name a Democrat that doesn’t want universal health care, aka socialized medicine. Name a Democrat that doesn’t want to throw away our energy advantage that’s fueling this booming economy.

Which one of those policies sounds mainstream? I don’t think any of those positions, especially the ones on energy, sounds like they’re within a country mile of the mainstream.

The apocalyptic language and finger-pointing made clear that Trump’s 2020 campaign will probably look a whole lot like his run three years ago. Even after two-and-a-half years in the Oval Office, Trump remains focused on energizing his base and offering himself as a political outsider running against Washington.

If this is what passes for reporting, then journalism died. Watch the speech for yourself, then determine for yourself if President Trump’s speechwriter used “apocalyptic language”:

This Reuters hit piece is what I’d expect from the Agenda Media, which isn’t much. I don’t expect integrity. I don’t expect facts. I don’t expect insight. In other words, I have lower expectations for this Reuters hit piece than I have for articles I’ll read from Hot Air, Powerline, Daily Wire, The Federalist, Shot In the Dark, Legal Insurrection or Townhall.

This Reuters hit piece reads like something from a DNC press release. In other words, it’s a bunch of crap. One of the paragraphs in the article states “The Trump of 2020 will most certainly bear a strong resemblance to the Trump of 2016, brash and eager to bash his Democratic opponents and promote tough policies on trade and immigration.”

President Trump’s policies aren’t tough. They’re right. President Trump is fond of saying that he’s fighting for America, not some other nation. His slogan “Buy American, hire American” is wildly popular in hard hat country because other administrations, most recently the Obama administration, have forgotten these people. When came along and told them that they’d never be forgotten again, Blue Collar America rallied to him in unprecedented numbers.

Here’s another staple of President Trump’s rallies:

Check out this website for a powerful exhibit of how extensive President Trump’s list of accomplishments are. Listening to advisers of losing candidates is foolish. Here’s some advice that I’d ignore:

“His support with his base is as strong as it’s ever been for any Republican incumbent president. The challenge is adding to that and building the coalition he needs for re-election,” said Republican strategist Ryan Williams, a former adviser to 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

The thing that Williams (and most pundits) misses is that Trump’s base is already huge. Anyone that thinks that he doesn’t have the best support of any Republican amongst blue collar workers, miners and other hard hats is kidding themselves. They’re likely to be his most passionate supporters.

There’s no question that President Trump faces a fight for re-election. That being said, as Newt Gingrich points out in this interview, President Trump’s supporters are the most passionate supporters I’ve seen in a generation or more:

This tweet is far more telling than the Reuters hit piece:


So much for Trump supporters being haters/racists. The proof is in the pictures. These people support Trump wholeheartedly.

Seemingly each day, Nancy Pelosi issues another statement insisting that President Trump is a threat to our democracy. Each time, Ms. Pelosi steps up to the microphone to make these accusations, she makes the charge, then doesn’t offer proof that her accusations are substantive.

At other times, Ms. Pelosi insists that President Trump’s policies run contrary to America’s “values”. (That’s rather rich coming from someone who hasn’t ventured outside of the DC/New York/San Francisco beltway. She wouldn’t know what American values were if they bit her in the arse.)

Mrs. Pelosi, what do DC’s values have in common with Minnesota’s values or Indiana’s or Ohio’s values? What do San Francisco’s values have in common with Arkansas’s values or Mississippi’s values? What do New York’s values have in common with Utah’s values or Iowa’s values or Kansas’s values?

This time, Ms. Pelosi accused President Trump of undermining our democracy by answering George Stephanopoulos’ hypothetical question about whether to contact the FBI if a foreign government offered “dirt” on his 2020 Democrat opponent.

Democrats cried wolf — for the umpteenth time — because President Trump thought about this way about a hypothetical question. Those Democrats didn’t utter a peep when they found out that Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for dirt on then-Candidate Trump from a foreign spy. I guess buying dirt from foreigners is acceptable? Here’s Pelosi making an ass of herself during her press conference:

Ms. Pelosi is right. She’s said multiple times that President Trump has been involved in a criminal cover-up. What the Democrat-leaning media hasn’t done is ask her for specific proof that she’s pointing to. That’s because they’re there to protect her highness. The Media Wing of the Democrat Party isn’t interested in being a journalist. They’re interested in being propagandists.

When he was ABC’s White House correspondent, Sam Donaldson was frequently ridiculed as a shit-for-brains idiot. Thankfully, he left the scene of the crime for a few years. The bad news is that he’s back, this time supporting this generation’s shit-for-brains idiot, CNN’s Jim Acosta.

Donaldson’s writing today is as worthless as his reporting was a decade ago. His spin-piece starts by saying “Reading Jim Acosta’s new book ‘Enemy of the People’ is like watching a train wreck in progress, with passengers bracing for the inevitable crash.” It continues with a laughable statement:

Acosta cites instance after instance when this President and many of his staff show that they are bent on interfering with the ability of reporters to bring the public an accurate account of the administration’s stewardship.

I’m betting that 75% of Americans think of today’s White House correspondents as glory-seeking elitists. Further, I’m betting that Americans think of these egomaniacs as only marginally interested in writing the truth. To hint that these White House glory-seekers are actual journalists is an insult to actual journalists like Catherine Herridge, Sharyl Attkisson and Sara Carter.

Then there’s this:

Whether now he truly believes that the mainstream press, as he says, reports “fake” news and is the “enemy of the American people,” or that such language is simply part of a tactic meant to stoke the anger of his “base” while escaping an objective accounting of his actions doesn’t matter. The effect is to undermine the credibility of the media, leaving him free to pursue policies that harm us at home and abroad.

The truth is that much of today’s ‘reporting’ is sloppy. A significant portion of the stuff that’s in the Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times is intended to drive a Far Left agenda. The truth isn’t a major consideration. It simply isn’t a big consideration.

It’s a rare day that the MSM gets the details right on a complex story. In Acosta’s case, he isn’t interested in reporting the story. He’d rather be the story. Remember this incident?

How Sam Donaldson can watch that and think that that’s legitimate reporting is mind-boggling. How on God’s green earth that’s considered reporting is beyond me. That’s why the media is no more popular than ants at picnics.

The common theme amongst Democrat propagandists, aka Resistance journalists, is that the economy isn’t nearly as fantastic as people know it is. Take Juan Williams latest article, for instance.

Williams writes “After almost two-and-a-half years with Trump in the White House, including two years with Republican control of both houses of Congress, the middle class is getting squeezed to a pulp. The rich got their Trump tax cut. GDP looks good. And the stock market is doing great for people with money to invest. But it is only the rich who get the big rewards in Trump’s economy. What about the middle class?”

Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, has an explanation for Williams in this interview with Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal:

Incomes keep rising, with the lowest incomes growing at the fastest rate. Minority unemployment is the lowest in history. The unemployment rate for women is the lowest it’s been in 50+ years. Paychecks are bigger, partially because of the rising wages, partially because of the tax cuts. Disposable incomes are rising, too. Williams’ spin that “the middle class is getting squeezed to a pulp” is fiction.

The average family making $75,000 saved $2,300 in taxes last year. How is that like “getting squeezed to a pulp”? If that’s Williams’ definition of getting squeezed to a pulp, sign me up. Lost in all of this is the fact that wage growth for people in the bottom quintile are rising at a 6.4% rate, almost doubling the wage growth overall, which is at 3.4%.

I don’t know what Williams is talking about when he asks “What about the middle class”? Does he automatically trust everything that Media Matters feeds him? Listen to this BS:

Wages remain stagnant. Trump’s trade wars are hurting farmers. Coal mines keep closing. Teachers in several states have been on strike.

That first sentence is utter BS. That isn’t my opinion. That’s what the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) is reporting. Further, people that’d left the workforce are returning to the workforce.

Further, President Obama’s trade deals had already been hurting farmers. At least with President Trump, there’s a strong possibility that they won’t be hurt in the future. As for coal mines closing, the markets are determining what’s happening; with newer power plants switching to natural gas, the switch was inevitable. With the Obama administration, they simply attempted shutting down the entire coal industry through regulations.

Do people who watch the markets agree with Trump? Not Rick Newman of Yahoo Finance. He wrote in his column last week:

“If Trump deserves credit for a roaring stock market then Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan do as well. In fact, all of them presided over more total highs in the S&P 500 than Trump so far.”

Certainly, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan deserve credit for robust economic growth. President Obama can’t take credit for robust economic growth during his time in office because economic growth during his administration was pathetic. Stock market growth the result of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, not President Obama’s economic policies.

When President Trump took office, economic growth was pathetic, wages were legitimately stagnant and people were leaving the workforce in droves. President Trump got rid of the Obama administration’s policies and replaced them with pro-growth economic policies. Since President Trump’s and the GOP’s policies have kicked in, economic growth has doubled, consumer confidence and small business confidence have hit all-time highs and people are returning to work. If Williams thinks that President Obama deserves part of the credit or that it’s purely coincidental, he isn’t paying attention.

If we needed additional proof that Democrats hate President Trump, Democrats supplied that proof today. Trump said “I am here today to break the logjam and provide congress with a pathway forward to end the government shutdown.” It didn’t take long for Democrats to reject President Trump’s plan:

But the approach had already been rejected by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who said it largely repackaged a proposal that had failed earlier. Pelosi called the idea a “non-starter,” and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) also panned the proposal as a way to reopen the government, even though Trump’s plan cribbed from Durbin’s own legislation.

Simply put, Democrats hate President Trump more than they like this country. Democrats don’t care if our nation is overrun with illegal aliens. Democrats don’t care if our border is secure. What Democrats want most of all is to politically demolish President Trump.

Obviously, the plan is to make Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and freshman House Democrats look unreasonable. That isn’t difficult since Democrats are totally unreasonable. Say goodbye to that Speaker’s gavel, Nancy. Many of those freshmen that were elected in 2018 won’t be returning thanks to your intransigence. Now that we know that Ms. Pelosi isn’t returning to the negotiating table, it’s time to go nuclear. The thing Republicans need to understand is that Democrats aren’t interested in bipartisanship. They’re interested in demolishing President Trump’s presidency. Period.

The Agenda Media won’t report on this fairly either. They’re part of the open borders crowd. They don’t care about protecting Americans. That’s why it’s impossible to pressure Democrats. It’d be different if we had an honest press. We don’t. (Think Buzzfeed.) President Trump should drop the hammer the minute that Senate Democrats filibuster President Trump’s offer:

Here’s what I’d write if I was President Trump’s chief speechwriter:

Democrats in the House and Senate have left me no alternatives. While more caravans head toward the border, Democrats and their allies in the Agenda Media insist that this is a “manufactured crisis.” How dare they say that. I dare them to tell that to the Angel families that I’ve met, the Angel families that tried meeting with Speaker Pelosi but were told she wasn’t there.

Democrats insist that they’re for border security. That’s a lie. If they’re for true border security, they wouldn’t have voted to filibuster the bill just presented for Senate consideration. They wouldn’t have issued a letter saying that it was dead on arrival in the House.

In both instances, Democrats said that they’d only allow a vote if the government opened first. When I asked Speaker Pelosi if she’d fund the wall if I re-opened the government, she said “No.” I’ve been willing to negotiate throughout. Unfortunately, Democrats have rejected my offers to even meet. I can’t negotiate with myself.

Therefore, I’m left with just one option. Today, I’m invoking the Emergencies Act to protect the United States from mass illegal immigration, drug trafficking and human trafficking. While Democrats insist that I’m manufacturing this crisis, people from California to Texas to Staten Island have felt the pain of these criminals. If that doesn’t constitute a national emergency, nothing does.

My highest priority as president is to protect human lives. Because Democrats won’t join with me in protecting American lives, I’m taking action to protect those lives.

Saying that the Get Trump media has been exposed — again — is understatement. Thursday night, Buzzfeed announced that it had proof that President Trump had told Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. Immediately, legions of ‘journalists’ started dancing on President Trump’s grave. Shortly thereafter, Democrat politicians “speculated about impeaching President Trump or calling for his resignation.”

Unfortunately for them, the ‘reporting’ was from Buzzfeed. Rather than react with caution, Democrat politicians and the media wing of the Democratic Party started dancing on President Trump’s grave. ‘The MSM’ is already trying to distance itself from the crap it touts each day:

The MSM’s hatred of President Trump is palpable. If I got $100 for each ‘journalist’ that’s said that “the walls are closing in on Trump” or that they’ve got him now or that Mueller is close to getting President Trump or other such statement, I’d be wildly wealthy. If I received another $100 for each time a ‘journalist’ started a sentence with “If this is true” about this case, I’d be as wealthy as Trump.

I’m with Alan Dershowitz when he said “The anti-Trump pundits have been wrong so often that the only people who persist in believing them are Trump opponents who dream of seeing him forced out of office and maybe even winding up in prison. By any objective standard, these self-appointed media ‘experts’ have lost all credibility.” CNN’s Brian Stelter bemoans the loss of credibility of ‘the MSM’, saying that the whole industry shouldn’t be judged based on the actions of a few bad actors.

That’s fair enough if there were only a few bad actors. There aren’t. It’d take me virtually the rest of this weekend to list the anti-Trump spinmeisters that appear on CNN panels alone. Remember, too, that this is a long weekend. That’s before talking about the anti-Trump haters on MSNBC. Later, Dershowitz wrote this:

I wish the media would go back and show the categorical statements and confident predictions of their paid commentators who have been proven wrong so many times. Their record of accurate predictions is nothing to brag about.

That’s being generous. At the end of the video earlier in the post, Stelter said “We have to keep our standards high.” Huh? You’re kidding, right? CNN doesn’t have standards. They’re as untrustworthy as Buzzfeed.

Thursday night, Buzzfeed published this article insisting that they had sources who’d verified as fact that President Trump had ordered Michael Cohen to lie to Congressional investigators. Friday night, the Special Counsel’s office issued a statement, saying “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.

Let’s first highlight what Buzzfeed ‘reported’ about President Trump. They reported “President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter. Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. ‘Make it happen,’ the sources said Trump told Cohen.”

What started as another ‘the walls are closing in on Trump’ turned into another dismal failure for the left. The Special Counsel’s statement doesn’t exonerate President Trump but it certainly cripples Buzzfeed. Again. Here’s how CNN covered the special counsel story:

Here’s how FNC covered the same story:

Like I said earlier, this doesn’t exonerate President Trump but it certainly hurts Buzzfeed.