Posted on Leave a comment

Team MSNBC Adores Warren for Posing for Pictures After Dismal 4th Place N.H. Finish

Sometimes when you watch MSNBC, you just see indiscriminate adulation of Democrats. Cameron Cawthorne of the Washington Free Beacon highlighted a scene where Elizabeth Warren was still posing for cellphone photos with supporters despite her dismal fourth-place finish. It came during Rachel Maddow’s hour on Tuesday night. This somehow made her extraordinary, instead of just ordinary. 

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Can I show you the loneliest job in politics? Can we go to Warren headquarters, please? Where again tonight, all evidence says that Elizabeth Warren has finished out of the money. She has finished fourth. She is still at work, one after another after another. Since she gave her remarks earlier tonight, while we’ve been talking, while we’ve been covering other stories, Elizabeth Warren, who lives just to the south of the state of New Hampshire, is taking a picture with all who ask.

RACHEL MADDOW: This isn’t lonely to me. This is awesome! I love this! 

Then MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace, the ex-Bush aide, spilled out a laugh line: “She’s a really, really, really good candidate.” No, obviously not. She just came in fourth, a single-digit finish in the state right next to hers. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota pretty much doubled her vote total.

Cawthorne pointed out this isn’t the first time MSNBC has gushed over Warren’s superhuman endurance posing for photos for hours after campaign appearances. And they weren’t the only outlet pouring sugar. 

Fox’s Greg Gutfeld played this clip on The Five on Tuesday, joking “She is on her way to becoming a Walmart Santa and MSNBC is so supportive.”

Posted on Leave a comment

Nets Insist Trump Tweets ‘Testing the Independence’ of the DOJ

Without any evidence, the broadcast networks continued Wednesday to push the narrative that President Trump supposedly interfered with the sentencing of his longtime friend Roger Stone. And according to their accusations, a pair of Trump tweets were the smoking gun that proved he was “testing the independence of the Justice Department,” as CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell proclaimed.

Speaking of the media’s speculation as if it was the truth, O’Donnell kicked off her struggling newscast by claiming: “President Trump is testing the independence of the Justice Department, thanking his Attorney General for taking charge of the case of his longtime friend Roger Stone, in an attempt to keep him out of jail.” That was a blatant lie from O’Donnell, the DOJ did want Stone to serve time.

Attorney General Barr had made it clear that Stone should be incarcerated, just not for the seven to nine years, federal prosecutors were chasing. As other news outlets had reported, in the filing overruling the prosecutors (which was a legal ability of the AG) DOJ leadership wrote that they were seeking “a sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment would be reasonable.”

Despite the fact the White House and the DOJ said there was no coordination between the two, CBS White House correspondent Paula Reid suggested that was untrue and pointed to a tweet as her evidence. “The Justice Department insists there was no coordination with the White House. But this morning, the President congratulated Barr for his involvement,” she said.

Of course, CBS leaned heavily on the shrill screeching of raging Democrats:

 

 

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Attorney General William Barr ought to be ashamed and be embarrassed, and resign.

REID: Democrats charge Barr with enabling an abuse of power.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I have formally requested that the inspector general of the Justice Department investigate this matter immediately.

ABC’s chief White House correspondent and White House Correspondents Association president, Jon Karl also keyed in on Trump’s tweets and suggested a different one was suspicious. “Both the White House and the Justice Department have said that the President had absolutely no involvement in this decision to overrule prosecutors in the Stone case, even though it came within hours of the President’s tweet,” he said.

On NBC Nightly News, White House correspondent Peter Alexander was more direct and took his accusation about tweets straight to the President:

PETER ALEXANDER: Isn’t your tweet political interference?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Not at all.

NBC was also invested in making the President seem out of control by repeatedly saying he was “lashing out” and “seething.” The soundbite Alexander used showed a man quiet reserved.

Back on CBS, Reid highlighted a soundbite of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) criticizing Trump for tweeting about an ongoing case. But Alexander used a soundbite of him slamming the prosecutors. “I got real concerns about overzealous prosecution,” the Senator said.

This comes as all three of the broadcast networks have ignored Congressional testimony from FBI Director Christopher Wray, where he admitted the start of the FBI’s Russia probe was “illegal.”

The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:

CBS Evening News
February 12, 2020
6:31:59 p.m. Eastern

NORAH O’DONNELL: Good evening, and thank you so much for joining us. We’re going to begin tonight with breaking news. President Trump is testing the independence of the Justice Department, thanking his Attorney General for taking charge of the case of his longtime friend Roger Stone, in an attempt to keep him out of jail. It’s a highly unusual move for the President of the United States to lash out at a career Justice Department lawyers involved in such a case.

Stone, who first urged Trump to run for president emergency 30 years ago, was convicted by a jury in November on seven federal charges. But late today, the President claimed Stone was treated horribly. The President’s attacks appear to be part of a larger post-impeachment surge as —

Paula Reid leads off our coverage tonight.

[Cuts to video]

PAULA REID: President Trump shrugged off allegations he interfered in the Justice Department’s handling of the Roger stone case.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’m not concerned about anything.

REID: Attorney General William Barr reversed course Tuesday and sought a lighter sentence for the President’s longtime friend. Four federal prosecutors resigned from the case in protest.

TRUMP: They ought to go back to school and learn, because I’ll tell you, with the way they treated people.

REID: The Justice Department insists there was no coordination with the White House. But this morning, the President congratulated Barr for his involvement.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Attorney General William Barr ought to be ashamed and be embarrassed, and resign.

REID: Democrats charge Barr with enabling an abuse of power.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I have formally requested that the inspector general of the Justice Department investigate this matter immediately.

REID: The President also targeted the judge overseeing Stone’s case, prompting a rare rebuke from his closest ally, Senator Lindsey graham.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I don’t think the President should have tweeted about an ongoing case.

REID: But yesterday, the President penalized the U.S. attorney who oversaw Stone’s trial, withdrawing her nomination for a top job at the Treasury Department. Democrats say the President’s behavior proves he learned nothing from impeachment.

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): He can abuse his office, he’ll never, ever be held accountable by this Senate. That was the lesson.

[Cuts back to live]

REID: The President was asked this afternoon what he learned from impeachment. He said the lesson that he’s taken away is simply that Democrats are crooked, vicious, and never should have brought impeachment charges in the first place. Norah.

O’DONNELL: Paula, thank you.

Posted on Leave a comment

A More or Less Perfect Union

“A More or Less Perfect Union” is a three-part series, produced by Free to Choose Network, that will air on various PBS stations across the nation starting in February. The documentary is a personal exploration of the U.S. Constitution by Justice Douglas Ginsburg, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit and is now a senior justice on the court. Ginsburg explores the U.S. Constitution and features interviews with and gains the perspectives from constitutional experts of all political views — liberal, conservative and libertarian. He examines the key issues of liberty in the U.S. both from a historical and contemporary perspective. Among those issues are freedom of the press and religion, slavery and civil rights, the Second Amendment, separation of powers and the number of ways that the Constitution’s framers sought to limit the power of the federal government.

The first episode is titled “A Constitution in Writing.” It examines the contentious atmosphere that arose among the delegates in that hot, humid Philadelphia summer of 1787. State delegates were sent to Philadelphia to work out the problems of the Articles of Confederation, which served as the first Constitution of the 13 original states. This part of the documentary examines some of the efforts to deal with the problems of the Articles of Confederation while maintaining its guiding principle to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. It also examines the compromises and struggles that led to the document we know as the U.S. Constitution. Some of the framers, particularly the Anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, saw the Constitution as defective and demanded amendments be added that contained specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights and clear limitations on the federal government’s power. They swore that they would never ratify the Constitution unless it contained a Bill of Rights.

The second episode is titled “A Constitution for All.” One major emphasis of this episode is the examination of the Supreme Court decisions that undermined racial justice both for slaves and later ex-slaves for a century after the Civil War. Several constitutional scholars discuss how the courts and states ignored and weakened the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, which were designed to ensure equality for recently emancipated slaves. There is also discussion of Bill of Rights guarantees to people accused of a crime. There is more exploration into the Bill of Rights guarantees of free speech, religious freedom and the notion that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen “life, liberty or property.” This forced the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.

Episode three, “Our Constitution at Risk,” examines the many ways that our Constitution is under assault today. It points out that the framers would be shocked by how all three branches of government have grown as a result of what we the people demand from our elected representatives. There’s a discussion about how some of our Bill of Rights guarantees mean absolutely nothing today, namely the 9th and 10th Amendments, which reaffirm personal liberty by specifically limiting the federal government to its “enumerated powers.”

“A More or Less Perfect Union” is not just a bunch of academics and constitutional experts preaching. It features interviews with everyday Americans weighing in with their visions on the rule of law, the branches of government and the debate over originalism. There’s a companion book titled “Voices of Our Republic,” edited by Ginsburg. It is a collection of thoughts about the Constitution from judges, journalists, and academics. It includes the thoughts of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Neil Gorsuch and Sandra Day O’Connor, publisher Arthur Sulzberger, professor Alan Dershowitz, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and historians Joseph Ellis and Ron Chernow, along with Jack Nicklaus, Gene Simmons and many others.

The most important audience for “A More or Less Perfect Union” is high school and college students. For it is they who stand a good chance of losing the liberties that made our nation the greatest and freest on earth.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Posted on Leave a comment

CNN Really Wants Us to Feel Bad for Andrew McCabe After Trump ‘Attacked You Personally’

CNN continued to embody its Jeffrey Zucker-led moniker of being an ethics-free, fear-mongering, and liberal-heavy network as The Situation Room and host Wolf Blitzer again attempted to make viewers feel bad for CNN contributor Andrew McCabe, the former acting FBI director (who’s under criminal investigation).

Why? Because hours earlier, McCabe was again “a prominent target of” President Trump’s “anger.” 

So here was CNN again trying to make the world feel bad for a guy who, among other things (such as leaking to the media), was fired from the FBI in 2018 after it was discovered he lied to the FBI inspector general at least four times. For shame.

 

 

Blitzer welcomed McCabe with a softball, open-ended question following a clip of the President thanking the Justice Department for intervening in the Roger Stone case: “What is your analysis? What’s your assessment? Your reaction when you hear that from the President?”

McCabe bemoaned Trump was “once again…committing transgressions in — out in plain sight” and, while speaking nothing to his own sullied reputation, kvetched how “it’s hard to explain how what a departure this is from every reasonable standard of how to conduct prosecutions and investigations in a rule of law society in which all people are treated the same.”

Blitzer continued, treating McCabe like some rational, squeaky-clean expert (click “expand”):

BLITZER: Have you seen anything like — you spent how many years in the FBI? 

MCCABE: 21 years. 

BLITZER: Alright, 21 years in the FBI. Have you seen a president attack a federal judge, for example, or go after prosecutors — federal prosecutors along these lines? 

MCCABE: Not only have I never seen it, the one time that I can remember President Obama, you may recall, made an offhanded pertinent remark during your investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail situation in which he opined that we were unlikely to find much, and that simple statement rocked us to the core. I can tell you that we were incredibly concerned about, you know, asking ourselves, what does that mean? Does the president mean to tell us what his intent was for the investigation? Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. President Obama didn’t interfere with our investigation in any way. But just that simple mention put us on edge. Now, we live in a world under this President where those sorts of things happen very directly and overtly every day.

The unserious interview dragged on with Blitzer fretting in a previewing another Trump clip that 
“the President attacked you personally, not the first time, again today.”

The unserious interview dragged on with Blitzer fretting in a previewing another Trump clip that “the President attacked you personally, not the first time, again today.”

After playing the clip of Trump noting how “nothing happened” to “all the people that…launched this scam” like James Comey and McCabe, the longtime CNNer addressed McCabe like he had just been assaulted: “So, when you hear that from the President of the United States, what goes through your mind?”

Someone get Wolf a fainting couch!

McCabe immediately responded like a true Deep State hack that “it’s disgusting and shocking” and “[a]s many times as it happens, you never really get over that, but I think it’s important to take it out of the context of just me, and here again, we have a President casting aspersions of people who have never been charged with a crime, myself, Jim Comey, anyone else from that group that we worked with at the FBI.”

“He routinely refers to people as corrupt or having committing crimes when that could not be further from the truth and again, Wolf, I think he does this because he’s trying to plant that thought in people’s minds. If he says it enough times, he thinks people will believe it,” he added without pushback or a statement of irony from Blitzer.

To see the relevant transcript from CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on February 12, click “expand.”

CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
February 12, 2020
5:18 p.m. Eastern

WOLF BLITZER: Today, President Trump, first on Twitter and then camera, praised the Attorney General Bill Barr and the Justice Department for intervening in the case against his political ally Roger Stone. Joining us is CNN contributor Andrew McCabe. He’s the former deputy director and acting director of the FBI. Andrew, thanks so much for coming in. 

ANDREW MCCABE: Sure. 

BLITZER: I want you to listen and I want our viewers listen and watch what the President said in the Oval Office a little while ago. 

MCCABE: Okay.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I want to thank the Justice Department for seeing this horrible thing, and I did not speak to them by the way so you understand, they saw how horrible this is of a nine-year sentence of doing nothing. You have murders and drug addicts — they don’t get nine years. 

BLITZER:  That follows a tweet from the President last night. He wrote: “Congratulations to Attorney General Bill Barr for taking charge of a case that was totally out of control.” What is your analysis? What’s your assessment? Your reaction when you hear that from the president? 

MCCABE: Well, the comments in the Oval Office and of course the tweets are just once again, we can see the President committing transgressions in — out in plain sight, right? He makes no mistake about the fact of what he wants and then, of course, offers his congratulations to the attorney general for executing the order. This is not the first time that we’ve seen this from this President. You can look back just to the Eddie Gallagher case, a few weeks ago and there’s — there’s many other examples of that.

BLITZER: Well, what’s the transgression that he made? 

MCCABE: Well, Wolf, it’s hard to explain how what a departure this is from every reasonable standard of how to conduct prosecutions and investigations in a rule of law society in which all people are treated the same. The — one of the fundamental bedrocks is that the president does not get involved in criminal prosecutions, certainly doesn’t weigh in with his preferences on sentences, wouldn’t typically attack witnesses, wouldn’t assail the government for recruiting informants, but these are all things that this President has done repeatedly. 

BLITZER: Have you seen anything like — you spent how many years in the FBI? 

MCCABE: 21 years. 

BLITZER: Alright, 21 years in the FBI. Have you seen a president attack a federal judge, for example, or go after prosecutors — federal prosecutors along these lines? 

MCCABE: Not only have I never seen it, the one time that I can remember President Obama, you may recall, made an offhanded pertinent remark during your investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail situation in which he opined that we were unlikely to find much, and that simple statement rocked us to the core. I can tell you that we were incredibly concerned about, you know, asking ourselves, what does that mean? Does the president mean to tell us what his intent was for the investigation? Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. President Obama didn’t interfere with our investigation in any way. But just that simple mention put us on edge. Now, we live in a world under this President where those sorts of things happen very directly and overtly every day.

BLITZER: He says these federal prosecutors — they should go back to school. He once said that about senior intelligence officials as well. I want to play another clip — the President attacked you personally, not the first time, again today. Listen to this. 

TRUMP: You look at what happened — how many people were hurt, their lives were destroyed and nothing happened with all the people that did it and launched this scam. Where’s Comey? Why — what’s happening to McCabe? 

BLITZER: So, when you hear that from the President of the United States, what goes through your mind? 

MCCABE: Well, first of all, it’s disgusting and shocking. As many times as it happens, you never really get over that. But I think it’s important to take it out of the context of just me, and here again, we have a President casting aspersions of people who have never been charged with a crime, myself, Jim Comey, anyone else from that group that we worked with at the FBI. He routinely refers to people as corrupt or having committing crimes when that could not be further from the truth and again, Wolf, I think he does this because he’s trying to plant that thought in people’s minds. If he says it enough times, he thinks people will believe it. 

BLITZER: The President also today abruptly withdrew the nomination of one senior official Jessie Liu, who had — from the Justice Department — been overseeing the Roger Stone case, other cases, your own case, for example, do you see that as punishment for her — for this woman, Jessie Liu for not intervening in the Roger stone case the way he would have wanted? 

MCCABE: Well, I don’t know why Ms. Liu’s nomination was — 

BLITZER: For a Treasury Department — senior Treasury Department. 

MCCABE: — right, but it certainly could be that this is yet another example of the President conveying his displeasure with those folks who don’t executive his will, who don’t bend to his will, and deliver the results that he seeks. 

BLITZER: Thanks very much for joining us —

MCCABE: Sure.

BLITZER: — Andrew McCabe. You’re in The Situation Room.

Posted on Leave a comment

CNN en Español elogia a Mitt Romney por ´no temer a Trump´

Tras el bochornoso desempeño de Nancy Pelosi y compañía, los medios liberales, incluyendo los hispanoparlantes, decidieron enfocarse en el disidente republicano Mitt Romney, tratando al ex candidato presidencial del Partido Republicano como todo un héroe después de que rompiera con su partido al votar “culpable” en el artículo de impeachment de abuso de poder contra el presidente Donald Trump.

Este vídeo del programa Directo USA, en CNN en Español, muestra al presentador Juan Carlos López con la analista demócrata y colaboradora de CNN María Cardona (Héctor Barreto, de la Coalición Latina también participó), invitada a discutir la absolución del presidente Trump:

Además de enmarcar la pregunta señalando que “Mitt Romney, a nivel profesional y a nivel personal se puede dar el lujo de ser independiente”, López no cuestionó la aseveración corrosiva de Cardona de que todos los republicanos son como zombies que actúan por miedo al omnipotente y todopoderoso Donald Trump; es decir, todos menos Mitt, por supuesto.

Cardona insistió en que los republicanos actuaron no de acuerdo con sus convicciones, sino por miedo al presidente. Según la colaboradora de CNN, la diferencia entre los demócratas y los republicanos de hoy es “los republicanos no son capaces de defender a los valores americanos, a sus principios, frente al miedo que le tienen a este presidente”, alabando a los demócratas (y a Romney)  por cumplir su “deber hacia la constitución y el compromiso hacia nuestra democracia primero, antes de sus intereses políticos”.

A la estratega demócrata se le otorgaron dos minutos y medio de tiempo en aire para su monólogo en Directo USA,  donde defendió iracundamente tanto a Nancy Pelosi como a su justificación para perseguir el impeachment del presidente. Durante todo ese tiempo, hubo mutis por parte del presentador de CNN quien le siguió la corriente.

Según Cardona, que se limitó a repetir los puntos de conversación de los demócratas con respecto a la absolución de Trump, la Cámara de Representantes “comprobó abrumadoramente con evidencia de primera mano de que este presidente abusó de su poder”. ” Ella (Pelosi) entró en esto porque ella entendió la gravedad de esa llamada que hizo el presidente ante el presidente de Ucrania. El soborno, el chantaje, la extorción que este presidente trató de entrar en contra del presidente de Ucrania, eso está contra la constitución, está contra la ley. Ella (Pelosi) no quería hacer eso pero, ¿qué fue lo que hizo ella y los demás demócratas que votaron con ella y en ese artículo específicamente, Mitt Romney también”?

Para un medio que anteriormente criticó a Romney por sus “políticas antiinmigrante“, su nueva adulación solo confirma el extremo al que llegan para impulsar su agenda política.

Oprima “expand” para leer la transcripción completa del reporte arriba mencionado tal y como se transmitió por Directo USA de CNN en Español el miércoles, 5 de febrero de 2020:

JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ: Ya se pronunció una de las figuras que más genera reacción en el presidente Trump, Hilary Clinton, la secretaria de estado, rival de Trump en las elecciones presidenciales, dice.

Como el juicio político contra el presidente comenzó, los senadores republicanos se comprometieron, junaron, juraron, defender la constitución. Hoy, 52 de ellos votaron para traicionar este juramento y a todos nosotros. Estamos entrando en un territorio peligroso para nuestra democracia. Se requerirá de todos trabajando juntos para restaurarla.

Héctor, es significativo la decisión de Mitt Romney de romper filas, por ejemplo, dijo el presidente a través de redes pedía que Romney fuera expulsado de la conferencia republicana, que había debates sobre las advertencias a los senadores de no votar en contra del presidente. Mencionó a María, ej, siete senadores dijeron que lo que hizo el presidente en la llamada con el presidente de Ucrania, fue inapropiado.

Pero el presidente Trump ciertamente se creería que iba a ocurrir. Qué tanto cambia la situación para el presidente Trump que no permitió recibir a Juan Guaidó, presidente interino de Venezuela reconocido por más de 60 países, pero suspendió de manera sorpresiva, la comparecencia ante medios. La Casa Blanca dice que no fue por este anuncio. Pero es claro que este anuncio causó sorpresa y cambió el plan de acción que tenía la Casa Blanca para responder a la absolución del presidente.

HECTOR BARRETO: Sí, mira, lo que vimos, anoche, es estamos viendo lo que se va a tratar la economía. Lo que va a tratar las elecciones, que va a ser la economía. La gente va a tener que decidir si quieren seguir con este presidente o no. Obviamente, esto fue una distracción, ocupó meses, ocupó mucho tiempo, ocupó millones de dólares. Yo creo que la gente, los votantes, ya están cansados de eso. No creo que vamos a estar hablando de eso en una semana. Vamos a estar hablando de los demócratas, de las elecciones, de otras cosas. Pero mira, los fundadores de este país lo hicieron muy difícil, porque ellos no querían que esto fuera una (SIC) arma política, para sacar a alguien que no quieres, que no estás de acuerdo, estás contra sus políticas. Ese poder está en los votantes de los Estados Unidos, ellos van a tener su decisión. Hay una razón por que Nancy Pelosi no quería entrar a ese camino porque ella sabía lo que iba a pasar. Ella es una persona muy capaz, muy inteligente, muy fuerte. Pero ella no quería hacer esto, tuvo que hacerlo porque hubo mucha presión dentro de su cámara para tratar de herir este presidente. Pero ya sabíamos que iba a ser el resultado, ya vamos a seguir con otras cosas, y la elección continúa.

LOPEZ: María, este anuncio cambió los planes de la Casa Blanca. Sabías, que por lo que están reportando nuestros colegas desde la misma Casa Blanca, los tomó por sorpresa el anuncio de Mitt Romney quien explicó en una entrevista con la cadena Fox, las razones por la que decidió tomar este voto y decidió llevar la contraria dentro de su partido, aunque Mitt Romney, a nivel profesional y a nivel personal se puede dar el lujo de ser independiente.

MARIA CARDONA: Sí, así es Juan Carlos, es que tu vez a muchos demócratas dándole a Mitt Romney las gracias por por lo menos tener conciencia, por tener, representar sus valores, representar sus principios y no tenerle miedo a Donald Trump. Porque parece que sus 51 otros colegas todavía le tienen un pavor a este presidente, como algo que yo nunca he visto antes, especialmente, al frente de unas acciones que tomó este presidente que la cámara de representantes, comprobó abrumadoramente con evidencia de primera mano de que este presidente abusó de su poder. Y entonces, parece que Mitt Romney fue el único capaz de entender esto, de aceptar que sí, que este presidente, abusó de su poder, y que hay que decirlo, y que hay que enfrentar esa realidad, para defender a la constitución, para defender a nuestros valores.

Héctor tiene razón. La presidenta de la cámara, Nancy Pelosi, no quería entrar en esto. Pero en lo que sí estoy en desacuerdo y es que ella entró en esto no con la presión de sus miembros del grupo demócrata de la Cámara de Representantes. Ella entró en esto porque ella entendió la gravedad de esa llamada que hizo el presidente ante el presidente de Ucrania. El soborno, el chantaje, la extorción que este presidente trató de entrar en contra del presidente de Ucrania, eso está contra la constitución, está contra la ley. Ella no quería hacer eso pero, ¿qué fue lo que hizo ella y los demás demócratas que votaron con ella y en ese artículo específicamente, Mitt Romney también. Hicieron su deber hacia la constitución y el compromiso hacia nuestra democracia primero, antes de sus intereses políticos sabiendo que esto iba a ser, podría ser una decisión muy difíciles para muchos demócratas en la Cámara de Representantes.

Pero ahí está la diferencia, entre los demócratas, ahora mismo, y los republicanos de hoy día. Que los republicanos no son capaces de defender a los valores americanos, a sus principios, frente al miedo que le tienen a este presidente.

MARIA CARDONA: Sí, así es Juan Carlos, es que tu vez a muchos demócratas dándole a Mitt Romney las gracias por por lo menos tener conciencia, por tener, representar sus valores, representar sus principios y no tenerle miedo a Donald Trump. Porque parece que sus 51 otros colegas todavía le tienen un pavor a este presidente, como algo que yo nunca he visto antes, especialmente, al frente de unas acciones que tomó este presidente que la cámara de representantes, comprobó abrumadoramente con evidencia de primera mano de que este presidente abusó de su poder. Y entonces, parece que Mitt Romney fue el único capaz de entender esto, de aceptar que sí, que este presidente, abusó de su poder, y que hay que decirlo, y que hay que enfrentar esa realidad, para defender a la constitución, para defender a nuestros valores.

Héctor tiene razón. La presidenta de la cámara, Nancy Pelosi, no quería entrar en esto. Pero en lo que sí estoy en desacuerdo y es que ella entró en esto no con la presión de sus miembros del grupo demócrata de la Cámara de Representantes. Ella entró en esto porque ella entendió la gravedad de esa llamada que hizo el presidente ante el presidente de Ucrania. El soborno, el chantaje, la extorción que este presidente trató de entrar en contra del presidente de Ucrania, eso está contra la constitución, está contra la ley. Ella no quería hacer eso pero, ¿qué fue lo que hizo ella y los demás demócratas que votaron con ella y en ese artículo específicamente, Mitt Romney también. Hicieron su deber hacia la constitución y el compromiso hacia nuestra democracia primero, antes de sus intereses políticos sabiendo que esto iba a ser, podría ser una decisión muy difíciles para muchos demócratas en la Cámara de Representantes.

Pero ahí está la diferencia, entre los demócratas, ahora mismo, y los republicanos de hoy día. Que los republicanos no son capaces de defender a los valores americanos, a sus principios, frente al miedo que le tienen a este presidente.

Posted on Leave a comment

MSNBC on Non-Sanders Democrats: ‘Moderate,’ ‘Moderate,’ ‘Moderate,’ ‘Moderate’

In case you haven’t gotten the memo, the keyword is “moderate.” In a single hour, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell and one of her guests on Wednesday referred to the non-Bernie Sanders 2020 candidates as “moderate” four times. This despite the fact that Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Mike Bloomberg and others are quite liberal. 

Talking to DNC Chairman Tom Steyer, Mitchell wondered, “You’ve got more than 50 percent, if you combine Buttigieg and Klobuchar and some of the other candidates, in that moderate lane. Is that a rejection of Bernie Sanders and the liberal or progressive voters who are the most energetic, the most passionate?” 

Talking to Bloomberg campaign adviser Tim O’Brien, the journalist insisted, “You’ve got more than 50 percent of the vote was in the moderate lane.” Speaking of Klobuchar, Mitchell echoed Democratic talking points: “She would argue that she might have come in first if Pete hadn’t been in that moderate lane.” Democratic operative Jim Messina appeared on the show and claimed of New Hampshire: “Over 55 percent of voters voted for a moderate candidate.” 

 

 

Klobuchar has an extremely liberal voting record. She is radically pro abortion, promising to “reverse Trump abortion policies in the first 100 days.” Bloomerg is very pro-abortion and rabidly pro-gun control. Buttigieg is pro-abortion, pro-gun control and has talked about expanding and packing the Supreme Court. 

These are not moderates. Yet, CBS promoted this idea on Monday. On Tuesday, NBC hyped the “centrists” could stop Sanders. 

Apparently if you didn’t honeymoon in the USSR, you’re now a moderate, according to the media. 

A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more. 

Andrea Mitchell Reports
2/12/2020
12:32

ANDREA MITCHELL: And Pete Buttigieg who did so well, as you point out, might have actually bested Bernie Sanders if Klobuchar hasn’t done so well. She would argue that she might have come in first if Pete hadn’t been in that moderate lane.

JIM MESSINA: If you’re a Dem after last night, Steve talked about two numbers that are crucial for me, the first is turnout, it’s a very big deal that turnout is higher than 2008. That shows you a base and a party that is united and excited, and the second number that I think people need to watch is, over 55 percent of voters voted for a moderate candidate.

MITCHELL [To Tim O’Brien Bloomberg campaign senior adviser]: You’ve got more than 50 percent of the vote was in the moderate lane. Does that improve or hurt his chances because now you’ve got arguably two other candidates who might be viable, rather than Mike Bloomberg coming to the rescue? 

MITCHELL [To DNC chair Tom Perez]: Well, you’ve got more than 50 percent if you combine Buttigieg and Klobuchar and some of the other candidates in that moderate lane. Is that a rejection of Bernie Sanders and the liberal or progressive voters who are the most energetic, the most passionate, and how do you deal with them if they are rejected? 

Posted on Leave a comment

In Its War on Satire Sites, Snopes Comes to Defense of…Rush Limbaugh

The leftist “fact checkers” at Snopes have routinely gone after the Babylon Bee for writing satires that less intelligent Americans might mistake as real, such as….CNN buying a huge washing machine to spin its news.

But at least it’s spreading its battle on satire sites in defense of both sides. Two recent “fact checks” defended Rush Limbaugh after he made the news with his heart-breaking announcement of his advanced cancer, and President Trump giving him the Medal of Freedom during the State of the Union address.

Not everyone was touched and amazed by this event. Liberal hate commenced. 

Snopes cited a satire on DuffelBlog from 2013 that made another round of social media. (I found this on my own Facebook feed….presented as factual, which, well, suggests Snopes is right about some people, when confirmation bias kicks in.)

Rush Limbaugh Calls Troops ‘Welfare Queens, Moochers’

From the upscale Palm Beach corporate headquarters of his Excellence in Broadcasting Network, right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh unloaded on America’s men and women in uniform, insinuating their motives as less than pure.

In this satire, Limbaugh supposedly portrayed our soldiers as “getting ice cream for free…you are not a defender of the nation. You’re a welfare queen — or more appropriately, a welfare grunt.” 

The only people who would believe this are people who have never spent five minutes listening to the Rush Limbaugh program. 

Snopes also singled out The Onion, which is the most famous Satirical Fake News site on the internet. Babylon Bee’s operators objected to how Snopes largely ignored the Onion. 

They ran a satire headlined “Rush Limbaugh Admits Presidential Medal Of Freedom Less Of An Honor Knowing That Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou Also Received It.” The Onion imagined in its comedy that Rush talked himself into keeping his medal: 

“I almost sent it back. But instead I have decided to keep my Medal of Freedom and let it stand as a testament to my willingness to tolerate others. I hope my acceptance of it will go some way toward reclaiming this honor from the Martin Luther Kings and Nelson Mandelas of the world.”

MRC founder and president Brent Bozell spoke for many in his tribute to Rush at FoxNews.com:

He is unapologetically the True North for an entire movement, the clarion call of personal liberty, a champion of national defense and a defender of a civil society. Millions around the country turn their radios on at noon every day, as they have week after week, month after month, year after year, to hear his take on whatever current event is dominant, knowing he’ll always come through.

We have rated this “fact-check” by Snopes.com as The Real Deal, even if we like to think people can make out a satire. For similar analyses, please visit our Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers site.  

Posted on Leave a comment

Seth Meyers Already Fantasizing About Stacey Abrams as VP Pick

There seems to be little Democrats adore more than lefty politicians who refuse to take the loss following a defeat at the ballot box. Among those politicians being former Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who appeared on Tuesday’s Late Night With Seth Meyers.

Leftist host Meyers kicked off the night by wading into adulation territory:

 

 

We’re taping this tonight before the results start coming in for the New Hampshire Primary. I don’t need to tell you that your name is often bandied about as a potential V.P. pick for pretty much every candidate who’s still in the race. I know you won’t say if you have a preference for that, but do you look forward to the possibility of debating Mike Pence?

Abrams not so coyly answered: “I think it could be a very lovely experience.” To which Meyers, clearly salivating over the possibility of such a match-up, quipped; “It would be an enjoyable evening.”

Abrams then utilized the proposition as a therapeutic tool of sorts: “I have a lot of pent up aggression and some stark disagreements that I think could really lead to a vigorous debate.”

Unsurprisingly, Meyers teed up Abrams to speculate on the impact of race in the campaign:

You — I want to ask, a lot of people have been critical and have asked questions about, does it still make sense in this day and age to have Iowa and New Hampshire, states that take — I believe their voting very seriously but are, you know, very white states. What would you propose as far as how the primary system worked?

Vilifying “white states” is after all the m.o. of the press during election season and long thereafter.

Abrams gave a typical identity politics response:

…We actually reflect the composition of the United States as we go through the process, because we give so much credence to this that it really needs to be reflective of the demography and the people of the country.

Meyers then proceeded to express concern over the strategy of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates:

You think there’s not as much value in trying to flip Trump voters as there is in getting new turnout. Do you still believe that that should be what all the Democrats in the field should be trying to do?

The pillorying of America’s voter base continued as Abrams assailed Trump supporters for possessing unacceptable values:

We should be trying to convince people who share our values to live those values. I think Trump has helped us convince some of his former voters that they actually share our values and we want those folks to vote with us. But we should not be compromising our values to convince them that they want to come to us. If you agree with Trump after three and a half years of ignominy and demonization and sheer stupidity of his Administration, then mazel tov.

This is the person Meyers thinks will make a great Vice President of the United States.

Late Night With Seth Meyers

2/11/20

1:06:52 AM

 

SETH MEYERS: We’re taping this tonight before the results start coming in for the New Hampshire Primary. I don’t need to tell you that your name is often bandied about as a potential V.P. pick for pretty much every candidate who’s still in the race. I know you won’t say if you have a preference for that, but do you look forward to the possibility of debating Mike Pence?

STACEY ABRAMS: I think it could be a very lovely experience.

MEYERS: It would be an enjoyable evening.

ABRAMS: I have a lot of pent up aggression and some stark disagreements that I think could really lead to a vigorous debate.

(…)

MEYERS: You- I want to ask, a lot of people have been critical and have asked questions about, does it still make sense in this day and age to have Iowa and New Hampshire, states that take- I believe their voting very seriously but are, you know, very white states. What would you propose as far as how the primary system worked?

ABRAMS: Number one, they should all be primaries. I appreciate the camaraderie that a caucus creates, but the chaos is not unusual. As much as we were upset last week about Iowa, in 2012, the same thing happened for the Republicans. It’s a systemic challenge, not just a, you know, did they use an app challenge.

MEYERS: Yes.

ABRAMS: But more than that, we need primaries that actually reflect the communities that are going to be casting votes. And so my solution would be that we rotate who goes first and maybe we have a few folks who go first. We pick a few southern states, some midwestern states. We let the west, you know, play if they want. But we actually reflect the composition of the United States as we go through the process, because we give so much credence to this that it really needs to be reflective of the demography and the people of the country.

(…)

MEYERS: You think there’s not as much value in trying to flip Trump voters as there is in getting new turnout. Do you still believe that that should be what all the Democrats in the field should be trying to do?

ABRAMS: We should be trying to convince people who share our values to live those values. I think Trump has helped us convince some of his former voters that they actually share our values and we want those folks to vote with us. But we should not be compromising our values to convince them that they want to come to us. If you agree with Trump after three and a half years of ignominy and demonization and sheer stupidity of his Administration, then mazel tov.

MEYERS: Yeah.

ABRAMS: But our energy should be focused on those who believe, what we believe, that this is a government that should value and respect people, that should create space for everyone to be successful. And that should be a moral leader, not only here, but around the world. If those are the values you share, then we should talk to you and try to get you to vote.

 

Posted on Leave a comment

‘Tehran Rose’ McGowan Blisters Natalie Portman’s Oscars Hypocrisy

You know what they say about a broken clock being right twice a day. Actress and Weinstein accuser Rose McGowan is nine times out of ten an insufferable lefty, but she served up such a searing indictment of Hollywood hypocrisy that we’re going to cheer for her today.

McGowan had quite a bit to say about Hollywood’s biggest night of the year this past Sunday during the Academy Awards. As we all expected, the grandstanding and moral lecturing from the talent was at a fever pitch, but what we didn’t expect was that one of their own would go after Natalie Portman’s grandstanding so aggressively.

Mirroring conservative commentators on Twitter following the awards show, McGowan called Natalie Portman a “fraud” for wearing a Dior dress embroidered with the names of the female directors who weren’t nominated for any Oscars this year.

Of course, Natalie told flattering journos that it was part of her crusade to bring awareness to sexism in the movie industry. McGowan blasted her via Facebook for paying mere “lip service” to women. The actress claimed, “What is it with actresses of your ilk? You ‘A-listers’ could change the world if you’d take a stand instead of being the problem.” Rose wasn’t pulling any punches.

“Yes, you, Natalie. You are the problem. Lip service is the problem. Fake support of other women is the problem.” Now, of course, we’re not going to judge Portman’s intentions as complete BS, but it’s hard not to agree with McGowan’s sentiment when so much of Hollywood’s “activism” consists of them promoting degenerate progressive material in movies, lecturing the people who don’t get it during awards shows, and/or wearing symbolic pins for iffy causes like the mythical wage gap and calling it hard charity work.

It’s also hard not to argue with the point that several conservatives made via Twitter. Herald Sun reporter Rita Panahi tweeted, “Natalie Portman’s production company, Handsomecharlie Films, has only released movies directed by men & by Portman. She could use her considerable influence to elevate female directors but instead swans around in a Dior cape…”

But we’ll let Rose’s critique speak for itself. She added, “I was at a Women in Film event that you spoke at once, Natalie. You reeled off depressing statistics and then we all went back to our salads. I quickly realized you and the other women speakers (and that joke of an organization) are just… frauds. You say nothing, you do nothing.” Ouch.

McGowan has considered herself a voice for female empowerment since speaking out against famed Hollywood producer and predator Harvey Weinstein, who she claims raped her. She’s also got a crazy lefty streak in her that had her tweeting hysterical apologies to the Iranian regime after President Trump ordered the killing of terrorist Qassem Soelimani last month.

Still, “Tehran Rose” concluded her rebuke of the Star Wars actress, saying, “Stop pretending you’re some kind of champion for anything other than yourself. As for me, I’ll be over here raising my voice and fighting for change without any compensation.” Well, like we said, broken clocks are right every once in awhile.

Posted on Leave a comment

Oi! Have a Speech License? UK Watchdog Ofcom to Police Social Media

The British government may be free from Europe thanks to Brexit, but it appears to be sliding into authoritarianism as it drafts regulations to crack down on freedom of speech.

Ofcom, the United Kingdom’s media watchdog, according to Forbes’ Feb. 12 coverage, “is to be given the power to regulate social media companies, holding them to account for harmful content.”

The UK has already reportedly threatened to begin jailing tech executives for not policing their own platforms enough. An April press release had established an Orwellian “duty of care,” which requires “companies to take reasonable steps to keep their users safe and tackle illegal and harmful activity on their services.” Forbes wrote that Digital media and culture secretary Nicky Morgan is introducing measures based on a government white paper launched in April last year. The “duty of care” concept is mentioned in its pages no less than 53 times.

This “Online Harms White Paper,” which was first released last April, also includes references to a similar German regulation “Network Enforcement Act (‘NetzDG’),” which can fine social media companies for up to 50 million Euros for failing to remove hate speech in compliance with German laws.

One revealing admission made by this government document is that it describes “online hate” as being targeted at groups “including ethnic minorities and women.”

It specifically cited the growing use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in moderating platforms, which seems to reflect a pattern with the British government. One such project, “HateLab,” funded by the Obama-era government and United Kingdom, uses artificial intelligence to scan users’ social media for “grossly offensive” anti-PC speech and attempted to predict when people will commit “hate crime[s].” In short, the AI was meant to scan social media history for “pre-crime” purposes.

Morgan, quoted by Forbes, said she espoused “We will give the regulator the powers it needs to lead the fight for an internet that remains vibrant and open but with the protections, accountability and transparency people deserve.”

The “Internet Association” was critical of the legislation, and represents the interests of Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Amazon and Google. It was cited by PCMag as warning that these new regulations could “hurt the British tech sector, worsen the quality of internet services for ordinary consumers, undermine privacy, and produce a chilling effect on freedom of speech.”

Free speech advocates may feel betrayed by groups they considered to be allies. The more conservative Tory Party under prime minister Boris Johnson, which helped bring about Brexit, said, “We will legislate to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online — protecting children from online abuse and harms, protecting the most vulnerable from accessing harmful content, and ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to hide online,” according to the Jerusalem Post.

Even the Northern Irish DUP’s Carla Lockhart has condemned “anonymous accounts.” She commented: “For too long the world of social media has been like an online Wild West, with no regard for what little rules exist.” She remarked that “A token slap on the wrist will not be enough to protect users,” and said that going forward, “it is vital that regulators are empowered with the ability to impose serious fines and penalties on social media companies.”

Perhaps American tech companies should honor their home country, and acknowledge that an internet of the “Wild West” is ultimately what is best for liberty.