|To: Mrjns who wrote (173180)||12/9/2019 8:32:10 AM|
|UFB. ZERO CREDIBILITY AT FAKE NEWS, FAILING NY TIMES.|
New York Times Flunks Fact Checking 101: Their Star 'Trump Voter' Never Voted in 2016
The nation's leading newspapers have asserted their role as the most important "independent fact-checkers" in politics. So why do they fail to fact-check their own interviewees? On Twitter, Jeryl Bier noted The New York Times had to add an embarrassing correction to a two-month old story on Friday. Reporter Trip Gabriel did an entire story on a Trump voter iin Erie, Pennsylvania changing his mind....except records showed the man never voted.
The original story on October 7 began: "Mark Graham, a real estate appraiser in this faded manufacturing hub, sat with friends at a gym named FitnessU on the morning after the Democratic debate in mid-September. He had voted for Barack Obama, but in 2016 he took a gamble on Donald Trump."
Now he was willing to vote for the Democrat in 2020, whoever it is. Then came the Editors' Note:
Editors’ Note: Dec. 6, 2019 So why did Trip Gabriel (and his copy editors) fail to check on whether Graham voted in 2016? It's not rocket science. They linked in their correction to Erie ABC affiliate JET 24:
After this article was published, local news media reported that Mark Graham did not vote in the 2016 election. The Times has confirmed that Mr. Graham did not vote in the election.While Mr. Graham acknowledged misspeaking about his voting record, he said the article accurately reflects his feelings about the 2016 race and President Trump’s performance in office.
JET 24 obtained Erie County voting records showing he didn’t vote at all in the 2016 election. They were checking because the Democratic PAC American Bridge used Mark Graham in their TV ads. Double oops for liberals. Apparently, American Bridge considered the Times a reliable source....even if their star voter wasn't.
Documents from the Erie County Elections office shows Graham didn’t vote in the municipal or primary election in 2016—he did not vote for Donald Trump.
It could be a Triple Oops if you consider that the Times also did a whole story on November 12 publicizing the American Bridge ad campaign in swing states, citing the Mark Graham ad among others...and posting it in the online article. Reporter Jonathan Martin explained:
Part of the group’s challenge in such a polarized moment, however, will be finding people in their communities willing to appear on television speaking in personal terms about politics....(The disaffected Trump voter who appeared in the Pennsylvania spot — Mark Graham of Erie, Pa. — was featured in a New York Times article last month.) At posting time, there was no Editor's Note on that piece.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: FUBHO||12/9/2019 8:35:57 AM|
| Nunes blasts Schiff for 'blatant disregard' of impeachment rules; blames 'vendetta' against Trump |
EXCLUSIVE: House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes blasted committee Chairman Adam Schiff for what he called an “alarming” and “blatant disregard” for the rules governing the House impeachment inquiry against President Trump, saying Schiff transmitted his investigative findings to the Judiciary Committee for the next phase in the proceedings without consulting him.
Fox News exclusively obtained the letter Nunes, R-Calif., sent to Schiff, D-Calif., on Sunday night. In the letter dated Friday, Nunes wrote that Schiff chose not to consult with him so that he could meet a “bogus” deadline for impeaching the president. The GOP congressman also accused the Democrat of having a “vendetta” against the president.
“I write in objection to your December 6, 2019 transfer of additional records and other materials relating to the Democrats’ partisan impeachment inquiry to the House Committee on the Judiciary,” Nunes wrote.
He went on to cite the rules governing the impeachment inquiry, passed in the House in October, which stated that “the chair of the Permanent Select Committee or the chair of any other committee having custody of records or other materials relating to the inquiry referenced in the first section of this resolution is authorized, in consultation with the ranking minority member, to transfer such records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.”
“As the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, I received no consultation prior to the transfer of materials, in violation of H. Res. 660,” Nunes wrote. “Accordingly, I expect that you immediately provide me a full accounting of documents that were provided to the Committee on the Judiciary.”
“Your consistent and blatant disregard for the rules is alarming,” Nunes continued. “I can see no reason for you to continue to ignore these rules, which the Democratic majority put in place, other than to meet a bogus deadline of impeaching the President by Christmas.”
He added: “I urge you to put an immediate end to your vendetta against the President, stop your constant rule breaking, and begin treating this Committee and its oversight responsibilities with the seriousness they deserve.”
Last week, the Intelligence Committee voted to adopt and issue a scathing report on its findings from its impeachment inquiry. Democrats on the panel asserted that their inquiry “uncovered a months-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.”
NUNES LOOKS AT LEGAL OPTIONS AFTER SCHIFF RELEASES PHONE RECORDS IN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
In their impeachment inquiry, the committee conducted extensive interviews with witnesses connected to the Trump administration’s relationship with Ukraine, after an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint alleging that during a July 25 phone call, Trump tried to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as issues related to the 2016 presidential election.
The president’s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats and witnesses have claimed showed a “quid pro quo” arrangement. Trump repeatedly has denied any wrongdoing.
The Democrats’ report claimed that Trump withheld nearly $391 million in military aid from Ukraine, conditioning its delivery as well as a White House visit with Zelensky on a public announcement that Zelensky was conducting the investigations. It also accused Trump of obstruction of justice for instructing witnesses not to comply with congressional subpoenas.
Nunes took issue with the issuance of the report to the Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., without consulting with him, as well as the transmission of additional underlying investigative material, according to an aide familiar with the matter. Also part of the committee’s report were Nunes’ phone records, which Schiff subpoenaed and released in connection with the impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, House Republicans issued their own report earlier this week delivering a point-by-point rebuttal to Democrats’ impeachment efforts.
“The evidence presented does not prove any of these Democrat allegations, and none of the Democrats’ witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanor,” Republicans said in their report released Monday.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Nevertheless, Nadler and Judiciary Committee Democrats, in consultation with Intelligence Committee and Oversight Committee Democrats, and at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have begun drafting articles of impeachment, which are likely to encompass two major themes: abuse of office and obstruction.
The Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing Monday, when counsels for the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees' Democrats and Republicans are to present evidence in the case.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)|
|To: FUBHO who wrote (173188)||12/9/2019 8:38:36 AM|
|WHAT A HARDCORE RACIST|
The Michael Bloomberg Speech He Doesn't Want You To Hear
Michael Bloomberg is out with a new online ad featuring his years of speechifying in support of more gun control laws, and debuted the clip with post on Twitter. As it turns out, there’s one very important speech that Bloomberg gave that’s not featured in the new ad. In fact, even though it was recorded, he refused to allow the speech to be released.
I’ve been working on gun violence for over a decade. And as president, I will fight gun violence from every angle and do everything in my power to save lives. pic.twitter.com/clzxVaktTO
— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) December 6, 2019
While Bloomberg’s new campaign ad features speeches going back to 2006, the speech Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want you to see is far more recent.
On February 5th, 2015, in front of less than 400 people, Michael Bloomberg had a speaking gig at the Aspen Institute, a think tank in Colorado that sponsors a variety of speakers to the ski town. Ordinarily the various speeches and events are recorded or streamed live, but either way, the speeches are in the public domain and available for public consumption. Since the Aspen Institute is all about exchanging ideas, that makes sense, but Bloomberg did something unheard of and blocked the release of virtually every second of footage of his talk that had been recorded.
Why would a high profile guy like Bloomberg do something like that? Maybe because he knew how bad this sounded.
Appearing before nearly 400 people in Aspen on Feb. 5, the billionaire founder of Bloomberg L.P. argued that in order to save lives, police should seize guns from male minorities between ages 15 and 25.Or maybe it was this bit that he wanted to keep from public consumption.
“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said during the speech. “So they just don’t have any longterm focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”
National media outlets latched onto that portion of the discussion, in which Bloomberg said one method to deal with the issue is to “throw them up against the wall and frisk them,” referring to the controversial stop-and-frisk tactics New York City implemented during Bloomberg’s tenure.I suppose it could have been this part of his talk as well.
About 95 percent of murders are credited to young, male minorities, he claimed, adding that motives are usually associated with drugs or domestic disputes.That was 2015 Mike Bloomberg. 2020’s Mike Bloomberg is an opponent of “stop and frisk” who bizarrely claims that no one ever asked him about the policy and whether or not he supported it until he ran for president.
“One of the unintended consequences is people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana. They’re all minorities,’” Bloomberg said. “Yes, that’s true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do you do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
2015 Mike Bloomberg was all about busting young black and brown guys for a little bit of weed if you couldn’t find a gun on them, but 2020’s Mike Bloomberg is all about criminal justice reform and making sure young minority men don’t go to prison for minor drug offenses.
You may be able to find some other inconsistencies between 2015 Mike Bloomberg and Bloomberg 2020 if you listen to the Bloomberg’s talk, which as it turns out is actually available online, at least in audio form.
Obviously that’s not the official recording. As it turns out, audio of the speech captured by one of the attendees leaked out on YouTube not long after Bloomberg demanded the official recording of the speech remain offline and unavailable, so you can hear the former mayor and current presidential candidate’s comments for yourself. The audio’s not that great, but not only is it clear enough to listen on your phone or laptop, with a little closed captioning it would make for pretty good content in an attack ad.
Michael Bloomberg says the way to make America safer is to disarm black and brown men under the age of 25, and to “throw them up against the wall” and frisk them if necessary. Michael Bloomberg says arresting minorities for low-level drug offenses is a good thing, because that means cops are doing their job. Michael Bloomberg: bad for minorities, bad for America.
Michael Bloomberg is spending tens of millions of dollars on ads full of the speeches he wants you to hear. I’d appreciate your help in spreading the word about the speech he doesn’t want heard at all. I’ve queued up the speech to start when Bloomberg starts his gun control comments, but you can go back and listen to the entire speech at the link above.
Cam Edwards has covered the 2nd Amendment for more than 15 years as a broadcast and online journalist, as well as the co-author of "Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Start a Family, and Other Manly Advice" with Jim Geraghty. He lives outside of Farmville, Virginia with his family. bearingarms.com
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|From: locogringo||12/9/2019 8:47:07 AM|
| WOW – OAN Stunning Lutsenko Interview – Outlines: Marie Yovanovitch Perjury, George Kent Impeachment Motive, Lindsey Graham Motive to Bury Investigation…|
Conservative Treehouse, by Sundance
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress.
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d’affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who engaged in carefully planned text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam Schiff’s political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine (’06-’09) and later helped the Obama administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA’s for Ukrainian ‘whistle-blowers’ who are willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S. Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the aforementioned laundry process. The VISA’s are unlikely to get approval for congressional testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered funds back through their various “institutes” and business connections to the foreign government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money laundering by granting conflict waivers, approvals for financing (think Clinton Global Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of “indulgence fees”, junkets, gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process. Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain meeting with corrupt Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko in December 2016.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, because, well, in reality all of the U.S. Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and contributions from foreign governments.
A “Codel” is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The “institutes” is where the real foreign money comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc. etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee. As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote to impeach President Trump, it’s not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and she ain’t about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the swamps’ financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of “Affluence and Influence” is how the intelligence apparatus gains such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S. intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There’s a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (6)|