Displaying posts categorized under

MEDIA

Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection By Gregg Re | Fox News Facebook Twitter Flipboard Comments Print Email

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/horowitz-finds-evidence-fbi-employee-altered-russia-probe-document

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found evidence that an FBI lawyer manipulated a key investigative document related to the FBI’s secretive surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser — enough to change the substantive meaning of the document, according to multiple reports.

The show-stopping development comes as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News that Horowitz’s comprehensive report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page will be released on Dec. 9. “That’s locked,” Graham said.

The new evidence concerning the altered document, which pertained to the FBI’s FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz’s upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

But the Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved worked “beneath” Peter Strzok, the FBI’s since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign.

“The person under scrutiny has not been identified but is not a high-ranking official — they worked beneath former deputy assistant director Peter Strzok, according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss material that has not yet been made public,” The Post wrote in its now-deleted paragraph.

Peggy Noonan Reminds Us Why Trump Won The NeverTrumpers’ fundamental error. Bruce Thornton

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/peggy-noonan-reminds-us-why-trump-won-bruce-thornton/

Three years after outsider Donald Trump blew up the political world with his implausible victory over the consummate insider, Hillary Clinton, many establishment Republicans still don’t get it. From their elite cocoon, they continue to indulge the hauteur that put off ordinary voters who had grown tired of a fossilized political class that serially ignored their interests, and seemed more concerned with their own insider perks and privilege, rather than in repairing the damage that decades of bipartisan progressive technocracy had inflicted on the Constitutional order.

The grande dame of the disgruntled NeverTrump Republicans has been the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan, whose columns on Trump usually sound like a mash-up of the prescriptions of Emily Post and a snobbery redolent of Lady Violet Crawley from Downton Abbey.

Noonan’s latest is an attack on the Republicans’ behavior during the House impeachment hearings, coupled with a scolding of the anonymous author of the anti-Trump book A Warning. We should credit her takedown of “anonymous” as “self-valorous and creepy.” But her comments about the Republicans reveal the underlying grounds for NeverTrump hatred: the resentment against those who don’t accept the progressive assumptions that politics is the business of a self-proclaimed guild possessing knowledge, techniques, and professional manners and decorum that the voting masses don’t have.

As typical of a Noonan column, she starts with some sly preening of her insider-status as a wise political guru: “A young foreign-affairs professional asked last week if the coming impeachment didn’t feel like Watergate.” Unlike hoi polloi, Noonan knows “foreign-affairs professionals,” and they seek her out for her wisdom. She then proceeds to contrast the “dignity and professionalism of the career diplomats” whom the Democrats––“disciplined in their questioning and not bullying and theatrical”––called on to testify, with the Republicans’ “interruptions and chaos-strewing” that she compares to “some of what the Democrats did during the Kavanaugh hearings.”

Fake News: AP, CNN, NYT Twist Sondland Testimony on Ukraine By Tyler O’Neil

https://pjmedia.com/trending/fake-news-ap-cnn-nyt-twist-sondland-testimony-on-ukraine/

“Sondland admitted that Trump “never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on the meetings.” He described the Democrats’ assumed quid pro quo as “my own personal guess.”

As Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the E.U., testified before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, news outlets twisted his words against President Donald Trump, in service of the Democrats’ impeachment narrative.

First, the Associated Press (AP) tweeted that Trump contradicted Sondland’s testimony. “Contradicting the testimony of his own ambassador, President Trump says he wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine and says the [Impeachment hearings] should be brought to an end,” the tweet read. In fact, Trump was quoting Sondland’s testimony in his remarks.

AP deleted the tweet. “An earlier tweet that didn’t make clear that President Trump was quoting from Gordon Sondland’s testimony in which he was quoting Trump has been deleted,” the news outlet admitted.

During his testimony, Sondland told Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the committee, “I finally called the president… I believe I just asked him an open-ended question. ‘What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?'”

“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” the ambassador said.

Yet this did not stop other liberal-leaning media outlets from twisting Sondland’s testimony in similar ways. During the testimony, a CNN chyron blasted the words, “SONDLAND: I PRESSURED UKRAINE AT ‘EXPRESS DIRECTION’ OF TRUMP.”

As Trump campaign Communications Director Tim Murtagh tweeted, the chyron was “factually wrong.”

Sondland did testify using the words “express direction,” but not in regards to allegedly pressuring Ukraine. “First, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States,” he said.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Fatigue: Impeachment Viewership 32% Lower Than Comey Hearings

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/trump-derangement-syndrome-fatigue-impeachment-viewership-32-lower-than-comey-hearings/

Fatigue from Trump Derangement Syndrome? The first day of impeachment hearings only brought in 13.1 million viewers.

The number becomes bleaker considering how many channels carried the hearing.

The numbers for these major hearings have declined since the Comey hearings:

The 13,098,000 who tuned in on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN and PBS marks a 32 percent drop from the number of people who watched James Comey’s testimony to Senate Intelligence Committee in May 2017, which delivered more than 19 million viewers.

In February, former Trump personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen’s testimony delivered 15.8 million viewers, while 13 million tuned in to see former special counsel Robert Mueller testify before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

Journalists Against Free Speech Once unswerving defenders of the First Amendment, members of the press increasingly support restricting expression. John Tierney

https://www.city-journal.org/journalists-against-free-speech

Suppose you’re the editorial-page editor of a college newspaper, contemplating the big news on campus: protesters have silenced an invited speaker and gone on a violent rampage. Should you, as a journalist whose profession depends on the First Amendment, write an editorial reaffirming the right to free speech?

If that seems like a no-brainer, you’re behind the times. The question stumped the staff of the Middlebury Campus after protesters silenced conservative social thinker Charles Murray and injured the professor who’d invited him. The prospect of taking a stand on the First Amendment was so daunting that the paper dispensed with its usual weekly editorial, devoting the space instead to a range of opinions from others—most of whom defended the protesters. When a larger and more violent mob at the University of California at Berkeley prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, students at the Daily Californian did write a forceful editorial—but not in favor of his right to speak. Instead, they reviled Yiannopoulos and denounced those who “invited chaos” by offering a platform to “someone who never belonged here.”

Free speech is no longer sacred among young journalists who have absorbed the campus lessons about “hate speech”—defined more and more broadly—and they’re breaking long-standing taboos as they bring “cancel culture” into professional newsrooms. They’re not yet in charge, but many of their editors are reacting like beleaguered college presidents, terrified of seeming insufficiently “woke.” Most professional journalists, young and old, still pay lip service to the First Amendment, and they certainly believe that it protects their work, but they’re increasingly eager for others to be “de-platformed” or “no-platformed,” as today’s censors like to put it—effectively silenced.

These mostly younger progressive journalists lead campaigns to get conservative journalists fired, banned from Twitter, and “de-monetized” on YouTube. They don’t burn books, but they’ve successfully pressured Amazon to stop selling titles that they deem offensive. They encourage advertising boycotts designed to put ideological rivals out of business. They’re loath to report forthrightly on left-wing censorship and violence, even when fellow journalists get attacked. They equate conservatives’ speech with violence and rationalize leftists’ actual violence as . . . speech.

ABC and CBS Collusion May Be a Smoking Gun with Real Victims Adam Mill

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/12/abc-and-cbs-collusion-may-be-a-smoking-gun-with-real-victims/

Authorities have a duty to investigate whether the two networks conspired to keep from the public information that parents and authorities could have used to protect children from sexual predators.

Did ABC and CBS engage in an unlawful restraint of trade by colluding to fire a “whistleblower”? After somebody smuggled footage of a candid video of Amy Robach bitterly complaining about ABC spiking a story on Jeffery Epstein, it appears the network went on a frantic search to find and punish the whistleblower.

Based on the public information about the story, it also appears that ABC and CBS may have colluded to punish the whistleblower. If true, not only is this a violation of journalistic principles, but the companies also should face scrutiny as to whether they may have violated federal law.

According to the video recently released by Project Veritas, ABC may have a secret video of an interview with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex slaves. Epstein, who died in jail under suspicious circumstances in August, in is the notorious architect of a shocking operation to press children into prostitution for the gratification of degenerate rich people. Many believe that Epstein received protection by blackmailing clients.

ABC and CBS are supposed to be competitors. But when ABC thought it identified the “whistleblower” who took the footage of Robach’s shocking confession, network officials realized that its competitor, CBS, employed the person suspected of leaking the video. (It turns out ABC was incorrect about the person’s identity, but that is immaterial to this story.)

ABC couldn’t fire somebody who didn’t work for the network. Instead, executives made some sort of arrangement with CBS. When CBS agreed to fire the employee, that may have been an overt act to further a restraint of trade in the supposedly competitive news business, limiting consumer access to future stories.

Inside the ‘War’ on Biden-Ukraine Reporting Julie Kelly

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/11/inside-the-war-on-biden-ukraine-reporting/

The goal is to protect Joe Biden, the only candidate most Democrats think can beat Trump, both from any political fall-out for his son’s shady dealings in Ukraine as well as how the Democrats enlisted Ukrainian help to sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign.

House Republicans want to hear from Alexandra Chalupa.

If you are unfamiliar with Chalupa, let’s just say this: She is the Ukrainian version of Christopher Steele. A paid political operative for the Democratic National Committee, Chalupa leveraged her government contacts in Ukraine (she’s Ukrainian-American) to dig up Russian dirt on Team Trump in 2016 for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

She compiled a report—dare we call it a dossier?—and gave it to the FBI in 2016. Her material was circulated to journalists working the Trump beat: Michael Isikoff, the Yahoo News reporter who first published Steele’s Trump-Russia propaganda in September 2016 that later was cited as evidence in a spy warrant on Carter Page, used Chalupa as a source that year.

Isikoff named Chalupa as someone who shaped the 2016 election: “Chalupa—who was in charge of the Democratic National Committee’s ‘ethnic outreach’ efforts—began circulating memos and emails laying out [former Trump campaign manager Paul] Manafort’s connections,” Isikoff cooed in October 2016.

Chalupa, like Steele, peddled her findings on Capitol Hill, attempting to get an official imprimatur on her partisan gossip. Unlike the work of Trump campaign she was trying to slander, her work and Steele’s represented legitimate collusion between a U.S. presidential campaign and foreign agents to influence the 2016 election.

The Media Holds A Massive Double Standard About Naming Whistleblowers Ben Weingarten

https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/11/the-media-holds-a-massive-double-standard-about-naming-whistleblowers/

As for the media, can we attribute its devotion to respecting the privacy of the Ukraine whistleblower to anything other than politics? The evidence suggests not.

Does the public have a right to know the name of the man who commenced the current effort to impeach the president of the United States? The Trump-hating media, following the lead of Trump-hating House Democrats, seems to think not. It seems they believe he should be held to a different standard than other whistleblowers.

Indeed, many legacy media refuse to run the presumed name of the so-called Ukraine whistleblower in spite of ample evidence as to his identity. Likewise, Twitter is trying to deter users from divulging his name by punishing select accounts that have done so. YouTube has similarly banned mentions of his name across their entire site.

Such entities appear to have fallen in line with Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the illegitimate impeachment inquiry. Schiff was prepared to give the complainant a public hearing before doing an abrupt about-face after it was revealed the congressman and his staff had coordinated with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being filed, and then lied about it.

Revelations about the ties of both the presumed whistleblower, as well as one of his lawyers, to Russiagate and the broader apparent rolling coup against the president only further undermine the credibility of the impeachment process and its underlying substance. Consequently, it is unclear whether the whistleblower will even respond to written questions from House members.

Dems Have No Good Reason to Hide the Whistleblower

Trump Jr. Vs. The View The president’s son takes no prisoners. Matthew Vadum

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/trump-jr-vs-view-matthew-vadum/

The left-wing ladies of the demented sewing circle that is “The View” ganged up on Donald Trump Jr. Nov. 7, relentlessly attacking him because he dared days before to repeat the name of the so-called whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president catalyzed the impeachment inquiry now in progress.

“The View” is on ABC, the same scuzzy TV network that suppressed the Jeffrey Epstein human-trafficking story for years to protect the powerful, as Project Veritas recently showed. Anchor Amy Robach was captured on video saying, “I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with [Epstein accuser] Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. … It was unbelievable … we had – Clinton, we had everything …”

Although the younger Trump was scheduled to discuss his new book, Triggered: How the Left Thrives on Hate and Wants to Silence Us, the co-hosts wouldn’t let him say much about it.

Instead, Abby Huntsman laid into Trump at the outset, claiming she and many other Americans were “triggered” when Trump identified the alleged whistleblower –who was already widely reported as CIA operative Eric Ciaramella—on Twitter. Huntsman and others labor under the false assumption that whistleblowers identities’ are protected by law, when in fact, the law only shields them from legal consequences for the disclosures they make.

“The whole point of releasing a name is to intimidate someone, to threaten someone, and to scare other people from coming out,” Huntsman said. “That’s something that dictators do. I’ve lived in China. I’ve seen that first hand. That’s not what America does.”

CNN Controversially Claims Israeli Cable Cars are “Controversial” Daniel Greenfield

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2019/11/cnn-controversially-claims-israeli-cable-cars-are-daniel-greenfield/

The media slur for anything it doesn’t like is “controversial”. This old bias technique maintains a modicum of the facade of journalism while priming its audience to view the thing that the media doesn’t like in a negative fashion.

And the media really hates Israel. So everything Israeli is “controversial”. Even its cable cars.

And thus, according to CNN, and its usual balance of correspondents with Jewish last names who hate Israel and a Muslim correspondent, “Israel approves controversial cable cars in Jerusalem”.

What’s controversial about the cable cars?

Do they run on the oil of baby seals? Do they scream obscenities at you when you get inside? Do they play FOX News all day?

The controversial CNN news network, which has been described as an “enemy of the people” by the President of the United States, controversially describes Israeli cable cars as “controversial” 4 times in its article. 

“Large infrastructure projects in Jerusalem are often controversial due to the city’s disputed status, and the cable car is no exception,” CNN controversially claims.

Are cable cars a “large infrastructure project”? 

Also this means that building roads, paving roads, providing electricity, and taking out the trash are all controversial because Israel does it.

This is the definition of bias. And that’s the kind of controversial behavior that makes CNN so controversial.