Humor-Challenged Tim Graham -- Who Fact-Checked A Game-Show Joke -- Mocks Snopes for Fact-Checking A Satire Website Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Tim Graham was in full condescension mode on a March 3 post:
When you proclaim yourself a fact-checking website, dedicated to helping people you believe are easily hornswoggled, that poor opinion of the audience can cause problems. Take satirical web sites. Do most readers understand the difference between jokey fake-news and real news?
Snopes.com followed other fact-checkers in warning about the Christian satire site Babylon Bee. But was anyone really going to buy this headline as real, Snopes? "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication." [This included the whimsical washer illustration to the right.] They felt the urgent need to call this out as “FALSE.”
Their humor-deprived headline was “Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? The news media organization reportedly invested in mechanical assistance to help their journalists and news anchors spin the news before publication.”
Nevertheless, David Mikkelson of Snopes reported he found people dumb enough to take this literally: “Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news media ‘bias’ and ‘fake news,’ some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally.”
Guess what happened next? Facebook uses Snopes as one of its fake-news flagging sites, so Babylon Bee's owner Adam Ford received a little note that an "independent fact checker" found "disputed" information in their humor. Facebook warned "Repeat offenders will see their distribution reduced and their ability to monetize and advertise removed.”
Funny thing, though: Two weeks earlier, Graham was very humor-deprived in fact-checking a comedy game show:
Everyone knows when the liberal comedians are joking, they're just making up Fake News, right? Or does the audience suspect there's a lot of truth behind the humor? Fans of the weekend NPR news quiz Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me! heard the notion that President Trump's new budget "slashed" spending on everything, including Medicare and Medicaid.
Spending on those enormous health programs is never "slashed" -- they grow by leaps and bounds, even if some spending formulas inside the program get adjusted, or the Republicans propose a lower trajectory of skyrocketing growth than Democrats -- which is not"cuts." Reporters (and comedians) never look at actual overall Medicare/Medicaid spending on a chart.
The moderate-to-liberalCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budgetreports that under the Trump budget proposal, "Between 2018 and 2028, nominal Medicare spending would grow by 120 percent instead of 134 percent."
Throwing in TBS and T.J. Maxx is a way to suggest there's some serious fakery going on in this joke. But people might actually think this argument as a whole is true -- that Trump is wildly slashing the social programs to buy "guns and tanks."
But then, Graham is nothing if not humor-deprived, as painfully illustrated in a March 14 tirade against the Comedy Central "The Opposition" for mocking, yes, conservative humor for being humorless. Which seems to prove "The Opposition's" skit correct.
WND Gives Platform to Trump-Linked Pastor To Spin For The President Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily edidtor Joseph Farah says his website "has not been adversarial toward Trump" -- which, of course, is a massive understatement. WND is effectively a state media outlet that's so pro-Trump it's embarrassing (or would be if Farah and Co. had any sense of shame about its fake news-laden brand of journalism that has pushed it to the brink of extinction).
WND's Art Moore serves up another example of fawning pro-Trump coverage in a Feb. 27 article. Moore's goal here is to spin away the Trump administration's apparent elimination of the White House'soffice for faith-based initiatives, as well as the elimiation of the "Evangelical Advisory Council," about which Moore offers no details. Instead, Moore gives a platform to pastor and Trump backer Johnnie Moore to handwave it because there are so many Christians in the White House now it's not necessary:
His relationship is informal – interacting sometimes daily with the administration, he said, and about every four to six seeks directly with the president – and he sees advantages to that lack of structure.
“Based on my experience, this White House doesn’t need to have a faith-based office in order to have a positive, open and productive relationship with the faith-based community,” Moore told WND.
The issues discussed, he said, range from the “obvious,” religious liberty and the sanctity of life, to the “less obvious,” paid family leave and criminal-justice reform.
“This is an administration that wants our community not down the road meeting with staffers, but actually in the heart of the conversation,” Moore said.
He said he personally has been in substantive meetings in the White House with a cumulative total of about 500 religious leaders.
“I’m not sure that many of those offices, over the course of previous administrations, have had so many meaningful and substantive interactions with religious leaders,” said Moore.
Art Moore also gave Johnnie Moore an uncritical platform to explain away the seeming preponderance of conservative evangelical Christians hanging around Trump as well as Trump's alleged "personal faith and a deep respect for pastors."
Art Moore does not seek a reponse to any of Johnnie Moore's claims -- he simply presents them as irrefutable fact and not as spin from a pastor with an agenda.
This is the kind of biased reporting WND has done in the past and, depite its financial scare, intends to keep doing in the future. Which means WND ultimately may not have much of a future.
Since February's unemployment numbers were better than the previous month, CNSNews.com didn't have to severely spin things as it did for January. Instead, it was full pro-Trump rah-rah mode. The chief cheerleader, as always, was Susan Jones:
The number of employed Americans has now broken eight records, most recently in February, since President Donald Trump took office.
155,215,000 Americans were employed in February, 785,000 more than last month’s record 154,430,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday.
The number of employed Black Americans hit a record high of 19,087,000 last month, and a record 72,530,000 women 16 and older were counted as employed.
The labor force participation rate increased three-tenths of a point, and the nation’s unemployment rate remained at a low 4.1 percent for a fifth straight month.
To put the unemployment rate in perspective, the last time we saw rates this low, Bill Clinton was president. In the final four months of 2000 -- Clinton's final full year in office -- the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent, and it dipped to a Clinton-era low of 3.8 percent for one month only, in April 2000.
The sidebar on black unemployment by managing editor Michael W. Chapman saw better numbers this time as well, to the point where he proudly harrumphed: "It is a historical fact that the unemployment rate for black workers in America has been the lowest in nearly 50 years, and this occurred under the Trump Administration."
Even editor in chief Terry Jeffrey went the pro-Trump stenography route for his sidebar, declaring that "The United States added 31,000 manufacturing jobs in February and employment in the manufacturing sector has now increased by 263,000 since December 2016, the last month before President Donald Trump took office." He went on to assert:
The last time there were more manufacturing jobs in the United States than there were in February was in December 2008, the last month before President Barack Obama took office. That month, according to BLS, there were 12,850,000 manufacturing jobs. But, in January 2009, the month Obama was inaugurated, manufacturing jobs dropped to 12,561,000—and did not move back above 12,600,000 until last month.
Jeffrey didn't mention that the U.S. was suffering a major recession at the time of Obama's inauguration. Gee, wonder why...
WND Columnist Blames Women's Sports (Not The NHL) for Men's Hockey Olympics Loss Topic: WorldNetDaily
Andy Schlafly comes up with a novel explanation for why the U.S. men's hockey team didn't do well during the Olympics in a Feb. 27 WorldNetDaily column:
After the poor showing by the U.S. men’s hockey team at the Winter Olympics, it was inspiring that the Marjory Stoneman Douglas boys’ hockey team captured the state championship on Sunday and will represent Florida at the national championship next month. The sister of one of the team’s hockey players was among the recent shooting victims at the high school in Parkland, Florida.
Boys’ hockey is thriving at the high school level, and this remarkable victory by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas team brings welcome relief amid the tragedy. Medals from this championship team were added to the memorial site of the shooting victims.
But boys’ hockey stars will find limited opportunities to play when they get to college. There are only a few dozen competitive college men’s hockey teams, not enough to develop the talent needed to compete with the rest of the world.
As a result, a ragtag team of Russians humiliated the U.S. men’s hockey team with a 4-0 drubbing in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The American team fared slightly better for its final game prior to its elimination in an overtime shootout against Slovenia, but NBC failed even to broadcast that exciting finish.
When the U.S. women’s hockey team won the gold in a victory against Canada, there was praise but none of the national excitement that occurred when our men’s hockey players defeated the Soviet Union at Lake Placid in 1980. Men’s hockey is far more popular than women’s hockey, for both men and women spectators.
Unfortunately, federal regulators who implement Title IX against college sports refuse to recognize this fundamental difference between men’s and women’s sports. Regulators require colleges to provide more athletic opportunities for women than for men, simply because there are now more women than men attending college.
The hockey competition won by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas team in the Sunshine State of Florida illustrates how much boys’ hockey has grown in popularity. Colleges, however, are generally forbidden from having more sports teams for men than women, so if there is not enough interest in women’s hockey or another large team sport for women, the college is not likely to start a men’s hockey team.
In fact, the main reason the U.S. Olympic hockey team didn't do well is that the National Hockey League refused to allow its players to take part, meaning the best players in the world couldn't take part and that the U.S. team was made up mostly of amateur and minor-league players. The "ragtag" Russian team, meanwhile, was made up of pro players.
Schlafly built his column around a false premise just so he could bash girls and women in sports. That's pretty sad.
NEW ARTICLE: Letting Fake News Stand Uncorrected Topic: Media Research Center
Both the Media Research Center and WorldNetDaily hyped a claim that CNN tried to script questions during a post-massacre forum. That turned out to be false -- but neither ConWeb outlet will correct the record. Read more >>
CNS Now Just Writing Articles To Keep MRC's War on Joy Behar Alive Topic: CNSNews.com
The Media Research Center has a longhistory of manufacturing right-wing outrage -- much of it seemingly so its "news" division, CNSNews.com, has something to do in covering what the MRC tells it to do. And so it seems for its jihad against "The View" co-host Joy Behar for a joke about Vice President Mike Pence's fundamentalist version of Christianity.
The MRC has been hammering on this for a while, and it's reached the stage where CNS is doing articles on it for the apparent sole purpose of trying to keep the story alive.
CNS managing editor Michael W. Chapman demonstrated how much of a corporate man he is in a March 7 article that summed up the company campaign in a nutshell: "Although two hosts on ABC's The View made bigoted, anti-Christian remarks during a recent broadcast, the top advertisers on the program have not denounced that anti-faith bigotry and they continue to advertsie on The View despite a nationwide campaign calling on them to suspend advertising until the hosts publicly apologize." Chapman waited until the final paragraph to disclose that CNS is a division of the MRC, meaning that his article is an in-house promotion.
By the way, Chapman's boss, Brent Bozell, made a bigoted remark in 2011 in likening President Obama to a "skinny ghetto crackhead" -- something his to which his fellow conservatives have never held him to account, and something Chapman would never dare bring up if he values his continued MRC employment.
Chapman dutifully followed up a couple days later in targeting one specific advertiser (needless bold italic in original):
The Clorox Company, a multinational American firm with more than 8,000 employees and net annual sales of $6 billion, apparently has no reservations about advertising its products on a television program that espouses anti-Christian bigotry.
On March 9, CNSNews.com reached out to Clorox again, asking it to state whether it has already or would suspend its advertising on The View until Behar and Hostin publicly apologize for their bigoted, anti-Christian remarks.
Could someone remind Chapman that he works for a bigot?
This time, though, Chapman failed to disclose that the MRC owns CNS, thus hiding the press-release nature of his article -- and the fact that there really isn't much separation between CNS and the MRC in any way that would preserve journalistic integrity (if there ever was).
WND Parrots Ad Hominem Attack on Witness Against Anti-Abortion Protesters Topic: WorldNetDaily
An ad hominem attack is a fallacious argument in which someone is personally attacked in order to try and discredit the argument the person is making, even if the two have nothing to do with each other. WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh provides a textbook example of an ad hominem attack -- in the service of right-wing legal group Liberty Counsel -- in a Feb. 26 article:
New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman boasts on his state website that he’s long advocated for abortion businesses and lately has opposed President Trump’s plan to ban visitors from certain terror-supporting nations.
He cites the many targets of his campaigns: corrupt politicians, companies that rip off New Yorkers, big banks, consumer fraud, lying, illegal tracking technology, drug trafficking rings, discrimination, hatred, and opponents of carbon credits and sanctuary cities.
But two legal teams point out that he doesn’t have the same concern for the law when the subjects are people who work for him.
Two teams defending individuals in a case Schneiderman is pursing against pro-life activists say the AG is going easy on people who take his side in the abortion debate.
For example, there’s Mary Lou Greenberg, which Liberty Counsel describes as a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which “openly admits” to be “organizing to overthrow this system at the soonest possible time.”
The group is “preparing to lead an actual revolution to bring about a radically new and better society: the New Socialist Republic in North America.”
“They don’t seek to win at the ballot box or to persuade Americans through peaceful speech on public sidewalks,” the report said. “Instead, Greenberg and her party have developed a specific, seven-point strategy for ‘How We Could Defeat them,’ which includes training a ‘revolutionary fighting force to start the all-out fight.'”
The party has prepared a “Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America” to replace the existing Constitution “after their bloody revolution has succeeded.”
“The 104-page manifesto purports to suspend due process until those who opposed the revolution are duly punished,” Liberty Counsel said.
Under existing federal law, a prison sentence of up to 20 years is issued to anyone who “knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States.”
However, and apparently most importantly, Greenberg runs an “escort program” at the Choices Women’s Medical Center abortion business in Queens.
Schneiderman called her to testify regarding the behavior of the pro-life activists.
Unruh is serving as the lazy stenographer for Liberty Counsel (he's basically rewriting a Liberty Counsel press release). So lazy, in fact, that he can't be bothered to contact either Greenberg to allow her to respond to the ad hominem attacks he's parroting; buried toward the end of the article is a claim that "Schneiderman’s office declined to respond to a WND request for comment on the allegations," but we suspect Unruh didn't put in much more than a token effort.
And so slavishly devoted is Unruh to sticking to the Liberty Counsel script that he doesn't even explain what this particular case is about beyond a direct quote straight from Liberty Counsel that makes a passing reference to one of the anti-abortion protesters who's apparently a defendant, Scott Fitchett Jr.
According to an actual news outlet, Fitchett and other anti-abortion protesters were accused of aggressively harassing and blocking patients trying to enter a New York City abortion clinic.
The fact that these anti-abortion groups are resorting to ad hominem attacks is arguably evidence that they can't really defend the behavior of the protesters. And the fact that WND unquestionably parroted the ad hominem attack is evidence that it hasn't yet earned the right to live in coming back from its financial problems.
CNS' Jones: Trump Affair With Porn Star Is A Liberal Media Narrative Topic: CNSNews.com
Fun fact: The words "Stormy Daniels" have never appeared in an original CNSNews.com story in relation to her alleged relationship with Donald Trump.
It's true. The name of the porn star shows up only in a couple videos ported from sister Media Research Center site NewsBusters and in a 2009 Associated Press article when she was considering a Senate run against David Vitter at a time when the Republican senator was linked to a prostitution scandal. And even a CNS article that touches upon her alleged affair with Trump refuses to use her name.
A March 8 article by Susan Jones takes great pains avoid using Daniels' name even when directly discussing the affair. And in an echo of an earlier article, Jones dismisses criticism of Trump as nothing but a liberal media narrative:
Should Congress look into allegations that President Trump had an affair with a porn star 12 years ago? A reporter asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about that at a news conference on Thursday.
"Let me just say that I'm more concerned about the president's policies, which undermine the national security of America's working families," Pelosi responded.
Speculation about Trump's rumored consensual relationship in 2006 -- rumors fueled by a porn star who wants to tell her story -- continued to dominate the headlines Thursday on cable news channels that have opposed Trump, and actively undermined him, since his first day in office.
We're pretty sure that nobody at the MRC ever dismissed right-wing obession about Bill Clinton's sexual peccaddioes ascoming from media outlets that opposed him and "actively undermined him since his first day in office."
WND's Farah Still Playing The Victim, Still In Denial Over His Fake-News Heritage Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has not been shy about casting blame for his website's financial problems -- except when it comes to admitting WND's long legacy of publishing fake news, that is. Farah went on another victimization rant in his March 6 column, blaming President Obama for the heinous offense of wanting news to be based on actual facts:
It was a presidential election year, and Obama was not happy with what was happening. Perhaps he sensed, before many of his allies, that the 2016 campaign was not going quite like he expected.
By the way, if the Russians were turning the tide in this election, who was in charge? That’s right. Barack Obama was in charge. Obama wasn’t blaming the Russians for anything. He was blaming the independent media. Something had to be done about the fact that more than one “reality” was getting out there. The media were no longer in lockstep as they were when he was a child – with three news presentations to choose from.
If you doubt what I am saying, consider the way Agence France Presse explained the backdrop for what Obama was saying: “His remarks came amid an election campaign that has seen Republican candidate Donald Trump repeat ideas and take on key staff from right-wing media outlets.”
What Obama was calling for, and what even I couldn’t have imagined in my worst nightmare, would be the case 16 months later; he got his way. He had given the cue to his friends in the Digital Cabal: It’s time to unlevel the playing field.
That’s what we saw happen in the aftermath of the swearing in of Donald Trump as president. In the euphoria of that victory, we in the independent media could not perceived what was underway – a kind of media coup was taking place. The Googles and the Facebooks and the Twitters of the world took control of the digital domain. They began throwing their monetary and corporate power around to deliver Obama’s legacy – the end of the free press in America.
These powerful, all-knowing, all-powerful ideological thugs began a scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners war on the independent media.
Perhaps the most important way they did that was by embedding left-wing extremists as rule-makers and gatekeepers, the speech-code cops of the Southern Poverty Law Center, to determine what is real news and what is fake news. It is nothing short of political censorship come to America.
What Obama was calling for, according to the article Farah quotes at the top of his column, was "some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world." And that's where Farah and WND fail.
WND's birther crusade was nothing but an eight-year, fake-news-based hate campaign. And we've caught WND in numerousexamplesofpublishingfakenews in just the past two years alone. One does not have to be a "left-wing extremist" to demand that news outlets stop running fake news -- or to know that WND has nobody to blame but itself for destroying any reputation it had as a legitimate news operation by publishing so much of it.
But Farah is too busy playing victim to take responsibility for his own actions:
The goal is nothing short of driving the independent media into extinction. This was what Obama was talking about. As we laughed about the kind of tyranny he disguised in the name of “democracy,” he was serious. And those who had the power to institute this diabolical plan to end freedom of the press in America without a constitutional amendment – the Digital Cabal – went about the business of doing so.
I won’t go into all the ways they have done it. But they did it. And all of my colleagues in the independent media know this, though they are not yet all admitting it. They are certainly not taking the sage advice of Benjamin Franklin who said famously: “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
Is it too late to save free speech and the free press in America?
No, it is not. But the hour is late. Time is short.
Here's a tip for Mr. Farah: If he and WND want to be taken seriously ever again, he needs to correct the record, apologize for all the fake news he has published, and then take some concrete steps to demonstrate he won't do it again and that he will turn WND into a serious news outlet. Otherwise, he and WND will continue to be dismissed as the fringe right-wing conspiracy-mongers they are.
Jesse Lee Peterson's Oprah (And Obama, And Transgender, And Emmitt Till) Derangement Syndrome Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jesse Lee Peterson began his March 4 WorldNetDaily column by displaying his usual issues with women, this time flipping out over the idea of Oprah Winfrey being president (with some of his usual Obama derangement mixed in):
Oprah is doing the best she can. She is insecure. She is a liberal. She promotes women, but doesn’t seem to respect men. She does not stand against evil, but rather, promotes it.
Oprah believes in “racism” (which does not exist, and never has). She said so-called “racist” older white people “just have to die.” She supported Barack Obama, thefallen messiah, the worst, most hateful president this country has experienced.
But I’m telling you: Oprah is worse than Obama.
As a pastor, I can plainly say: God would not call Oprah to run for president. We already had a girly, insecure, black liberal in office – and he nearly destroyed the country! (Thank God for thegreat white hope, President Trump, who is putting us back on track and Making America Great Again!)
You don’t want Oprah Winfrey for president. You don’t want Kamala Harris or Big Momma Michelle Obama.
If you want to know what liberal black women do when in charge, just look at any ghetto in America, where black women run the homes. The children are out of control. The men are weak. Gangs, drugs and violence rule the areas. Black women vote for liberal Democrats – at a rate of 98 percent in Alabama’s recent election – and evil people worship them for doing so.
Or, you know, maybe black women were offended that Roy Moore liked to perv on teenage girls -- something Peterson apparently has no problem with.
From there, it was on to more Obama derangement with a heaping helping of hatred for transgenders:
Oprah props up transgenders and homosexuals as “enlightened” people living “authentically,” such as Janet Mock, a black man who thinks he’s a woman. Barack Obama pushed transgenders in the military, put them in the wrong bathrooms and locker rooms, gave “sex-change” treatment to criminals, and let Chelsea Manning out of prison early. He made wrong people feel right (as Oprah called it, living “your truth”), but he attacked decent people as wrong.
From there, Peterson bizarrely suggested that Emmett Till deserved to be killed:
After George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the self-defense killing of the 17-year-old thug, Oprah called Trayvon Martin the “same thing” as Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy mutilated and killed in 1955 for allegedly flirting with a white woman. Till’s purported killers were also acquitted. So this deceiving woman helped feed blacks the lie that blacks suffer from “racism” and injustice today, when black-on-white crime and hostility is far more rampant.
"Purported killers"? Actually, the two men who killed Till admitted to doing so after they were acquitted of murder by a biased, all-white jury, and the woman Till allegedly flirted with eventually admitted she lied about Till assaulting her.
From there, Peterson smeared Trayvon Martin's father as "a very weak man," then ranted, "If you care about truth and justice, about men, children, women and families – and especially if you call yourself a Christian – you will never support someone like Oprah."
Of course, if Peterson himself actually cared about truth and justice, he would not have supported a credibly accused child molester's political campaign and slut-shame his accusers.
Here's Another Discredited Story The MRC Won't Correct Topic: Media Research Center
While we wait for the Media Research Center to correct the record regarding CNN's complete vindication on an MRC-promoted accusation of scripting questions at a televised forum, here's something else the MRC ought to be updating its readers about.
Last November, the MRC pounced on a report about a Border Patrol agent dying while on duty -- with the suggestion that the agent was killed by someone illegally crossing the border -- complaining that the media wasn't exploiting the story to its satisfaction.
Kyle Drennen wrote that "Reporting on Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez being killed in the line of duty over the weekend, on ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday, co-host George Stephanopoulos and correspondent Tom Llamas criticized President Trump for renewing his calls for a border wall in the wake of the death, dismissing it as 'political theater.'"
Over the weekend, tragic news broke in Texas just miles from the U.S./Mexico border of an apparent attack that left one Border Patrol agent dead and another one seriously injured. According to reports as of Monday, it seemed to indicate that the agents may have been beaten with rocks by attackers in an ambush. Coverage of the death varied widely among the big three networks on Monday evening. CBS Evening News led with the incident while NBC Nightly News omitted completely.
In the last couple of mornings, FNC's Fox and Friends has not surprisingly been spending substantially more time than CNN's New Day show discussing the death of a border patrol agent, Rogelio Martinez, and serious injury of his partner on the border in Southwest Texas.
On Wednesday, as Fox and Friends, New Day, and CBS This Morning all reported that a $25,000 reward is being offered by the FBI for information on the agent's death, FNC's morning show spent more than eight minutes on his death, along with discussions of the need for more border security, while CNN's primary morning show only spent about one and half minutes on the story as CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked a Republican congressman what he knew about the investigation.
On Tuesday, Fox and Friendscoverage of the border agent's death and the border security issue had amounted to almost 13 minutes while CNN's New Day gave the story just over two minutes.
The FNC hosts were more dismissive of the theory that the border agents might have been injured from a fall instead of from a deliberate attack.
Unfortunately for both "Fox & Friends" and the MRC, being dismissive of that theory was the wrong choice. Last month, the FBI reported that its intensive investigation, involving 37 field offices and 650 interviews conducted -- found no evidence that Martinez died from any sort of altercation, and it is believed he died in an accidental fall.
This completely undermines the MRC's exploitation of Martinez's death to promote Trump's anti-immigration agenda. But despite having a month to correct the record for its readers, the MRC has thus far refused to do so.
WND Keeps Flogging Dead Uranium One Horse Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is still clinging to the discredited Uranium One scandal. Bob Unruh writes in a Feb. 26 WND article:
Members of several congressional committees have been told by an FBI informant that the Russians “bragged” that the Clintons’ influence in the Obama administration would ensure approval of the Uranium One deal, according to the informant’s lawyer, Victoria Toensing.
Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium reserves in 2010 to a Russian state-owned company at a time when interested parties were donating hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton also was paid $500,000 by a bank tied to the Kremlin for a speech.
The FBI informant, William Campbell, said in his statement to Congress, which was obtained by the Hill, that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence Hillary Clinton.
Dick Morris, a longtime Bill Clinton adviser, writes in a commentary Monday that the Russians sought the Uranium One deal “very aggressively.”
He says Campbell told Congress that in the years before the deal came up before the Committee of Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), of which Hillary Clinton was a member, Russia deployed 10 spies in the United States with a single mission: to get close to Hillary Clinton to get her to approve the Uranium One deal.
CFIUS — a multi-agency board that includes the State Department, the Defense Department and the Justice Department — has the power to block deals that threaten national security.
We've already noted that according to Democratic congressmen who are part of the investigation, the Justice Department considers Campbell to be unreliable. But it appears Campbell can't back up anything regarding purported Russian influnece on Clinton for the Uranium One deal:
In February, staff from three panels — the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Intelligence Committee — interviewed William Douglas Campbell, a confidential informant to the FBI during its investigation and prosecution of former Russian official Vadim Mikerin.
During the interview, Democratic staff say, Campbell was unable to point to anything to support his claims that the review process had been improperly influenced “other than the fact that the [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)] allowed the deal to go through.”
“When asked whether he had any evidence that Russian influence on the Clintons affected CFIUS’s review of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Campbell stated that ‘that was outside my pay grade’ and that the topic was ‘not my bailiwick,’ ” according to Democrats.
He told investigators that he “looked on Google to see what CFIUS was about” after the deal was approved in 2010.
Asked if he had any evidence to support DeSantis’s claim that the $500,000 speaking fee paid to Clinton was part of a “quid pro quo,” Campbell said he did not recall any individual ever mentioning the fee.
During his testimony, Campbell also said he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence the Clintons and U.S. policy and that they expected the firm to provide in-kind support for the Clintons’ Global Initiative.
He said he believed that APCO sought “meetings at Commerce” and other “federal agencies” — but according to Democrats claimed not to know if any of those alleged efforts “ever came to fruition.”
Campbell “conceded that he was unaware of anything APCO had done or whether any specific meetings had occurred, and he did not explain the basis for his believe that APCO sought those meetings,” Democrats wrote.
Of c ourse, don't expect WND to stop flogging this dead horse anytime soon.
CNS' Jones: White House Chaos Is Just a 'Liberal Media' Narrative Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com reporter Susan Jones -- she of the pro-Trump stenography -- has a way to spin away the chaos surrounding the Trump White House: It's nothing but a liberal media narrative.
Yes, she really does claim that in a March 6 article:
Reacting to liberal media claims of "chaos" in the Trump White House, President Trump fired off a tweet Tuesday morning:
"The new Fake News narrative is that there is CHAOS in the White House. Wrong! People will always come & go, and I want strong dialogue before making a final decision. I still have some people that I want to change (always seeking perfection). There is no Chaos, only great Energy!" he wrote.
The chaos narrative gained traction last week, with the resignation of Trump's communications director and close aide Hope Hicks; Trump's latest criticism of Attorney General Jeff Sessions; and reports that his son-in-law Jared Kushner has lost his top-secret security clearance; and reports that White House economic adviser Gary Cohn might resign over Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
The Washington Post titled its "chaos" story as "'Pure Madness': Dark days inside the White House as Trump shocks and rages."
On the same day Jones' artifle appeared, White House economic adviser Gary Cohn resigned and Stormy Daniels sued Trump over an affair they allegedly had. Perhaps Jones can enlighten us on how the "liberal media" made both of those things happen.
WND's Klayman Really, Really Wants Be A Special Counsel So He Can Destroy Obama, Clintons Topic: WorldNetDaily
Last October, Larry Klayman wrote a WorldNetDaily column titled "Why I should be named special counsel." In his hate-filled column, he declared that "today we face a much greater threat and crimes by the Clintons and the administration of former President Barack Hussein Obama" and complained that "our current attorney general ... is too cowardly to do his job and prosecute either the Clintons or Obama." He then exhorted his readers to "please go to www.freedomwatchusa.org and sign the petition directed to President Trump and the Justice Department to urge that I be appointed special counsel. I am unafraid and uncompromised, unlike our current attorney general! I will get the job done!"
As of this writing, Klayman's petition claims to have more than 17,800 signatures. It's basically an email-harvesting campaign for his mailing list; there's no apparent verification mechanism, and it's unclear whether duplicate signatures are being counted.
Further, as someone who has expressed a personal dislike of the Clintons for two decades and Obama for the past decade -- to the point that Obama can file multiple libel claims against him should he choose to do so -- Klayman is highly compromised and his judgment cannot be trusted. Plus, he's a terrible lawyer anyway, so no sane politican would dare give him the job.
Still, Klayman continues to embarrass himself by demanding that he be given the chance to railroad politicians he personally despises. So he wrote a Feb. 25 WND column -- also headlined "Why I should be named special counsel" -- and made his case again:
The republic and our freedom hangs in the balance as long as the Clinton and Obama deep state – represented and aided by the corrupt Robert Mueller – is able to continue to wage a jihad on President Trump and his administration, all with the aim to bring it down and destroy it so that a socialist, communist, radical leftist, feminist and atheist country will take the place of the one conceived of at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.
The only man who has the courage, fearlessness and determination to root out these vermin in our rat-infested “capital of corruption,” is me, I am sorry but also proud to say.
What good are documents, when nothing ever comes of it? I can and will get documents that will be used as evidence through grand-jury subpoenas once I am named special counsel.
For these reasons, I must be appointed special counsel. In this way, I will, in effect, be your attorney general and have the full powers of law enforcement to investigate, indict and seek convictions of Mueller, Comey, the Clintons, Obama and persons like Brennan and Clapper.
Then I can finally put these criminals behind bars, and by so doing, save the presidency of Donald Trump.
Of course, if you're delcaring you want to be special counsel solely to protect Trump, you are totally compromised. But Klayman's apparently such a bad lawyer he doesn't understand that he's disqualifying himself.
Add a reference to the "self-hating Nazi collaborator Jew George Soros," and Klayman once again demonstrates why he should never be taken seriously.