Newsmax Joins In Post-Putin Damage Control for Trump Topic: Newsmax
The Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin press conference was such a disaster for Trump that Trump sycophants from all over (i.e. CNSNews.com) had to go into damage control mode. Even Newsmax had to rush to defend Trump in the aftermath.
David Patten cranked out a piece hidden behind its "Platinum" paywall titled "Sanctions Galore! The 22 Times Trump Has Slapped Down Putin," in which he insisted that Trump "already has been much tougher on the Russians than Barack Obama was during his entire presidency."
Meanwhile, Newsmax chief and Trump buddy Christopher Ruddy made a TV appearance making the same point, effectively arguing that whatever Trump said during the presser doesn't matter:
Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy said Sunday that President Donald Trump drew on his 50-year experience in business, where “words are not so much important as concrete actions,” in his summit with Vladimir Putin, and likely got “huge concessions” from the Russian leader.
In an interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Brian Stelter, Ruddy, a longtime friend of Trump, lamented the relentless criticism by the mainstream media of a president who is “new at his job.”
“I think the president made missteps, he admitted he misspoke,” Ruddy said of Trump’s controversial remarks about Russian meddling during a joint news conference with Putin. “But the idea I've heard on your program for the past 40 minutes, [columnist] Max Boot saying [Trump] was colluding in open daylight, he's engaging in treason, this is beyond belief.”
Trump’s a “relatively new president” who for 50 years has “been a business guy.”
“As a business guy, words are not so much as important as the concrete actions of the deal,” Ruddy said. He added that although he didn’t speak to Trump about his one-on-one Putin meeting, “my guess is [Trump] got huge concessions, the meeting went better than anyone expected. He thought ‘I’m going to be overly nice to this guy.’”
Ruddy noted “we'll see in the next coming months” if his guess is correct, but declared that Trump “didn’t want to go into meetings having a weak nuclear arsenal,” and before the summit, got NATO to increase military spending and has increased U.S. military spending.
“This is not a friend of Russia,” Ruddy said.
And when pressed why he seemed to talk like a friend, Ruddy explained it was because of his “negotiating style.”
“Go beyond the words and look at his concrete actions,” Ruddy said, asking: “Why would he put people like [Secretary of State] Mike Pompeo, [national security adviser] John Bolton, and [Defense Secretary] James Mattis, who are all Russia hawks, in key positions?”
Another Newsmax Writer Offers Sycophantic Defense of Trump Foundation, Baselessly Attacks Clinton Foundation Topic: Newsmax
Michael Reagan's July 14 Newsmax column, co-written with Michael R. Shannon, is so slavishly devoted to following in the footsteps of Newsmax chief Christopher Ruddy in defending the Trump Foundation over allegations of impropriety that he actually quotes Ruddy:
After state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman resigned in disgrace his placeholder Barbara Underwood took up the cudgel and continued bashing the president. She accused the president’s Trump Foundation of “persistent illegal conduct” continuing for more than a decade.
Proving that the lawsuit is simply a political strategy dressed up in a statute book, the trial is scheduled for a date just prior to the November mid-term election. What’s more, the attack and the timing has the total support of the judge in charge of the show trial. The New Yorker reported that when a Trump Foundation lawyer asked that the case be delayed due to the trial’s proximity to the election, the judge thought the request was funny.
“Judge Scarpulla laughed in response [to the Trump request], did not change the trial date, and hinted that she is likely to require the president to testify.”
These shenanigans caught the attention of Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy who has known the president for a number of years.
Ruddy points out the Trump foundation is almost unique in that it donated more money than it received in contributions: $19.2 million in donations after receiving $18.8 in contributions.
As we pointed out when Ruddy went into defense mode, the point of the investigation is not whether the foundation paid out more than it took in -- it's about apparent self-dealing in receipt and distribution of funds.It appears much of the foundation's money came from people and organizations that did business with Trump, foundation money went to settle legal disputes with his businesses, and some donations went to organizations that rented out his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach.
Reagan then made an apples-and-oranges comparison to the Clinton Foundation:
Compare that to the Clinton Foundation, which vacuumed up $500 million in contributions from 2009 to 2012 and only donated $75 million to unaffiliated charities.
The “persistent[ly] illegal” Trump Foundation was also strange in that it spent not one thin dime on salaries and its overhead costs can be measured with an electron microscope. While the Clinton Foundation serves as the Human Resources department for Hillary’s various campaigns and spent $110 million on salaries during the same time period. And another astounding $290 million went to “other expenses.”
We agree there is a foundation based in New York State that deserves close scrutiny from the AG’s office, but it is not the foundation named after Trump.
Reagan apparent got his numbers from the right-wing Federalist website and Rush Limbaugh, which is an indicator of how they are designed to mislead. But the Clinton Foundation is a global public charity, compared with the family-run Trump Foundation. As a group that actually cares about facts reports, the Clinton Foundation conducts most of its charity in-house and doesn't need to donate to outside groups, and the salary money mostly pays for people actually doing the foundation's charity work. Experts on charities say the Clinton Foundation's spending is not out of line with other charities in good standing.
Reagan concludes by calling the Trump Foundation investigation a "kangaroo prosecution." But that's exactly what he wants against the Clinton Foundation.
Newsmax's Hirsen Tries To Put Positive Spin on Chaos-Laden Anti-Abortion Film Topic: Newsmax
In his July 10 column, Newsmax's James Hirsen does his best to put a positive spin on an anti-abortion film whose shooting is beset with chaos -- and, like a good right-winger, blames it all on a Hollywood conspiracy:
When it comes to subject matter that is outside the leftist box, Hollywood just can’t endure any factual information coming to light, as witnessed by the massive overreaction by the entertainment elite to a pro-life project that is currently in production.
But Hirsen proves no "overreaction." He claims that producer and director Nick Loeb "initially attempted to be low key about the project, cast and crew so as to forestall the backlash that would inevitably come." But as the Daily Beast reported, Loeb also hid the nature of the film from the crew and from the owners of real-life locations where he tried to film.
Hirsen asserted that "The Beast is apoplectic that the narrator of the story is Dr. Bernard Nathanson (portrayed by Loeb)," a onetime abortion doctor who became an anti-abortion activist. But the Beast article shows no apoplexy over the film's use of Nathanson; it is apoplectic, however about the screenplay's obvious falsehoods (which Hirsen didn't acknowledge other than to complain that the Daily Beast noted the lies in its headline). For instance:
The year is 1966, and elderly Margaret Sanger, the world’s preeminent birth-control activist, is speaking to Larry Lader on her deathbed. Just before she passes, her dying words to Lader are as follows: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she says. “Larry, they can’t see this coming.” The reproductive rights movement is thus framed by the film as a racist plot on a par with Hitler’s Final Solution.
This oft-repeated conservative falsehood, shared by everyone from Herman Cain to Ben Carson, stems from the willful misinterpretation of a 1939 letter Sanger wrote wherein she outlined her plan to connect with prominent leaders in the African-American community and allay their possible fears concerning family-planning clinics.
[...]
Rather, “Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, [Sanger] hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears,” explained PolitiFact. “She attracted an impressive roster of supporters, including Du Bois; Mary McLeod Bethune, founder of National Council of Negro Women; and the pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church. Eleanor Roosevelt also backed the effort. For Sanger to launch a genocidal plot behind their backs and leave no true evidence in her numerous writings would require powers just shy of witchcraft.”
“After reading the script, you realize no, this isn’t opinion, this is lies and propaganda that they’re trying pass off within some historical context,” a crew member on the film, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Daily Beast. “With the Margaret Sanger quote, they twisted it and used it to discredit everything that she possibly did. It’s similar to what the right-wing media is doing now: they take one thing that someone said—or even half-said—and then they turn it into something that isn’t true in order to discredit everything they’ve ever done.”
Hirsen also claims: "The untold story includes Planned Parenthood’s scheme to recruit a pregnant girl to file a lawsuit that would create a right to an abortion. According to the film’s description, Nathanson, Betty Friedan and Planned Parenthood searched "the country to find a pregnant girl" that they could "use to sue the government for her right to have an abortion."
But as attorney Hirsen surely knows, finding a plaintiff for the purpose of testing the legality of a law is common, even on the conservatide side. For instance, Dick Heller, the plaintiff in a case that overturned a District of Columbia law restricting gun ownership, plotted for years to mount a legal challenge to the law and eventually hooked up with a libertarian lawyer who "needed plaintiffs" in the form of "media-friendly, law-abiding D.C. residents to serve as the public face of the case."
So desperate is Hirsen to suck up to Loeb and others involved in the film that he touts its executive producer as "Dr. Alveda C. King" even though King's doctorate is honorary, and claimed a cameo by Milo Yiannopoulos merely offers "left-wing discomfort" while not mentioning the fact that he has been shunned by most conservatives (but apparently not Hirsen) for effectively defending pedophilia.
Trump Buddy Ruddy Serves Up A Defense for Trump's Foundation Topic: Newsmax
When you start out your column by treating the National Enquirer as a source of sage knowledge, you're in the hole already. Yet that's what Christopher Ruddy does in his June 28 column, in which the Trump buddy defends the Trump Foundation:
The recent New York State Attorney General’s legal action against the Donald J. Trump Foundation sparked my interest.
In the years I have known the president, one thing about him is true: he’s quite generous and charitable.
Iain Calder, the long-time editor of the National Enquirer told me the story that in the 1980s, when the paper did a story about Trump’s quiet charitable giving, the rising billionaire called him to complain.
For the Sinatra generation, publicity about your charity was not a good thing.
So we're likening Trump to Sinatra now? Whatever.
Ruddy then complained that "the phrase 'no good deed goes unpunished' seems to apply to our president," claimed that the investigation of the foundation by the New York attorney genera was political and launched a lengthy defense of it:
So what’s the deal with the Trump Foundation?
Without having conducted a forensic review, the allegations seems to be the legal version of Fake News.
Although the Donald J. Trump Foundation accepts funding from outside donors, as a private, non-operating foundation, it’s primarily a vehicle to distribute grants from Donald Trump and his family.
A glance at its IRS form 990 filings reflects this. The foundation pays no salaries and its total expenditures each year are at zero or nearly so. Its charitable distributions each year are at or near 100 percent of what it takes in.
This is highly unusual. We have all read stories of celebrities who “pad” their foundations with salaries for family and hangers-on. Foundation funds are often used as a personal slush fund.
This has never been the case with the Trump Foundation.
The State’s case is largely based on nonsense.
Well, actually, not so much. As a real news organization notes, Trump did not donate any money to the foundation between 2008 and 2015 and most of its money was not actually his, and he used foundation money to settle legal disputes with his businesses. And Ruddy's hometown newspaper has reported that "Nearly all of the $706,000 in donations made by the Donald J. Trump Foundation in Palm Beach County since 2008 went to charities that hosted lavish fundraisers at Mar-a-Lago," which certainly looks suspicious (though the charities deny any quid pro quo). Further, the alleged use of foundation assets to help Trump's presidential campaign violates federal tax law.
Ruddy takes the "so what?" approach, literally, to addressing these allegations:
They note that since 2009 the Trump Foundation received little money from Trump himself but instead donations from friends and business partners.
So what?
If Trump was offered money and suggested the other party donate to his Foundation instead — so money could be distributed directly to charities — why is this bad?
Another allegation is that the Foundation made donations to some charities that paid for facilities at Trump golf clubs, hotels, or Mar-a-Lago.
The State implies the donations were used as an inducement for business.
Typically such donations were $5,000 to $10,000. Hardly an amount that could be considered a “bribe” to get a charity to spend $250,000 or more at one of his properties.
And considering the sheer number of groups using Trump properties, those who received donations were just a tiny fraction. Hardly a pattern of misconduct here!
Ruddy concludes by concluding there's "no evidence" to support the allegations, just like with "Trump-Russian collusion."
That's the kind of toadying that will keep Ruddy in Trump's inner circle.
Newsmax Image Rehab Project Bolling Gets A New Job Topic: Newsmax
The heavy lifting for Newsmax for the Eric Bolling image rehab project is apparently over, as the credibly accused sexual harasser scored a new show at right-wing CRTV, with his regular appearances on Newsmax TV drying up around the time his new job started. But that doesn't mean Newsmax won't have him around on occasion -- after all, its image rehab for Bolling is arguably a success.
A June 8 article by Todd Beamon touted Bolling's recent Newsmax TV appearance, in which he dubiously advocated that President Trump "should break all existing multi-lateral trade agreements and negotiate new accords with individual nations." Beamon weirdly described Bolling only as an "author" -- not "a credibly accused sexual harasser who left Fox News in disgrace" or even a host on a competing right-wing media outlet.
Then, a June 19 article promoting Newsmax's "Troopathon" fundraiser listed Bolling among the "amazing array of guests" taking part. The list also included Bill O'Reilly -- another Newsmax image rehab project -- and a host of other right-wingers ... and fake-news purveyor Jack Posobiec.
It's difficult for Newsmax to present itself as credible when it's trying to whitewash credibly accused sexual harassers and associating with right-wing nutjobs.
Newsmax Promotes An Even More Dubious Trump Conspiracy Book Topic: Newsmax
Apparently, publishing the dicredited Jerome Corsi's pro-Trump conspiracy theory book was not enough for Newsmax. It's now latched onto another one.
A June 4 "advertorial" written to look like a news article and carrying the byline of John Blosser -- we're guessing this is the same John Blosser who works for American Media, publisher of the pro-Trump National Enquirer -- serves up the details:
A shocking new book has torn away the curtain from the secret, subversive "Deep State" and exposed the plotting and tactics of those trying to destroy the Trump Presidency.
"The Plot to Destroy Trump: How the Deep State Fabricated the Russian Dossier to Subvert the President," written by Theodore Roosevelt Malloch, CEO of The Roosevelt Group, with a forward by leading Republican political consultant Roger Stone, is a hard-hitting book that rips the lid off of how the Deep State tried to use a phony dossier to spy on Donald Trump's campaign, smear him and block his election.
When that failed, Deep Staters continued to use it, to give birth to an investigation of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government – an investigation which, so far, has cost $16.7 million and produced not a whiff of proof that any such collusion exists.
"Make no mistake: there was a clear attempt, call it a plot, to take down the duly elected President of the United States,"Stone writes in his introduction to the must-read book.
Malloch is a pro-Trump sycophant most recently associated with WorldNetDaily who was reportedly for nomination as President Trump's ambassador to the European Union until he was busted for exaggerating his biography in, among other places, his WND-published autobiography. We last saw Malloch on the TV show of even more conspiracy-obsessed Alex Jones ranting about the "global elites" are being influenced by "Luciferianism." Roger Stone is, of course, a sleaze of the highest order whose unconventional sex life gets a pass from right-wing outlets who got the vapors when President Clinton had an affair with an intern.
The "advertorial" -- and, thus the book it's promoting -- gets off to a bogus start by portraying the Steele dossier as "phony" and "fabricated." As we've pointed out, several parts of the dossier have been corroborated. The "advertorial" adds:
The riveting book notes blatant errors in the dossier. For example, the dossier claims that Trump's attorney Michael Cohen met in "secret meetings with Kremlin officials" in Prague in August, 2016. Cohen has never been to Prague, according to his passport, and in August, 2016, was in Los Angeles for his son's college baseball tryouts.
Actually, special counsel Robert Mueller reportedly has evidence Cohen was in Prague in the summer of 2016 and that he entered through Germany, a trip for which he would not have needed a passport.
Nevertheless, the "advertorial" goes on to quote Malloch as saying that the dossier is part of a "carefully designed plot that begins with Christopher Steele and runs through the FBI, CIA and NSA, all in an attempt to subvert the Trump Presidency."
We suspect the dossier is more factually verified that Malloch's book.
Newsmax's Kerik Serves Up More Right-Wing Ranting Topic: Newsmax
We'venoted how disgraced ex-New York City police chief Bernard Kerik is trying to reinvent himself as a right-wing-ranting Newsmax columnist (the place that has done more than a little image rehab on him over the years). The ranting hasn't really stopped.
Kerik served up more pro-Trump huffing in an April column, declaring that the search warrants served up dubious Trump attorney Michael Cohen "should scare the hell out of every American in our country," adding that "Like an out of control locomotive, it appears by all reports that these prosecutors are extremely dangerous and acting with impunity, and unfortunately, with their actions against Michael Cohen, they just drove that locomotive smack into the scales of justice — and shattered the Constitution and what it stands for."
In another April column, Kerik attacked former FBI director James Comey, alleging that he was "leaking classified information" and that he should receive "the same treatment as Matt Bissonette, General Michael Flynn, and so many others that have dedicated their lives to the service of our country, only to be targeted by the very government they worked for, for selective and political reasons." Kerik has apparently not considered the possibility that Trump is targeting Comey for selective and political reasons."
Kerik's May 1 column attacks Democrats for allegedly abandoning blacks in favor of undocumented immigrants, going on to tout how "Blacks like [Candace] Owens, Ben Carson, retired Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke and Trump supporter Joy Villa, a black female singer and song writer, have been taking their message to America’s black communities." In fact, Clarke didn't "retire"; he abruptly resigned amid growing questions about his mismanagement of the county jail.
Then, on May 7, Kerik penned a screed against the purportedly "corrupt" FBI and Department of Justice, painting himself as a victim in the process:
For any American that has ever been the subject or target of a federal criminal investigation, there are three things that become abundantly clear to you — and your family — as you are dragged into a nightmare intended to bankrupt you, as well as destroy you personally, financially, and professionally.
First, that the good guys are not always good guys. Second, you do not have the constitutional rights you believe you have, especially if you don’t have the money to fight for those rights. Third, it’s not always about truth or justice for U.S. prosecutors — it’s about winning at all costs.
[...]
Having run two of the largest law enforcement agencies in the nation, the NYPD, and New York City jail system — including Rikers Island — I was completely oblivious to these tactics and injustices by federal prosecutors. Then I was targeted.
In the last two years however, things have changed, and unless you’re hiding under a rock, the American public has gotten to see firsthand how the FBI and Justice Department selectively violates U.S. law and their own policies with impunity.
O'Reilly Not Helping His Credibility By Promoting Corsi's Book Topic: Newsmax
We've noted how Newsmax has been courting disgraced former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly for months, in conjunction with an image rehab operation it's doing for him by giving him a platform on Newsmax TV and shoving all those sexual harassment claims against him down the memory hole. Indeed, rumors of O'Reilly hooking up with Newsmax have been heating up again of late.
Another sign of a possible O'Reilly-Newsmax hookup: O'Reilly is shilling for Newsmax's products -- and a particularly substandard one at that. A May 9 Newsmax article touts:
Bill O’Reilly says “Killing the Deep State” is “a book that the left doesn’t like.”
He’s right.
In fact, the left, and their allies in the big media hate Jerome Corsi’s sensational new book.
So much so, they have placed a virtual ban on Corsi across all the major networks — CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC . . . and even Fox News.
But Bill O’Reilly is not afraid and recently featured Corsi on his popular BillOReilly.com podcast.
Holding the book up for viewers, O’Reilly declared: “There’s a new book out — and it’s an homage to me — called 'Killing the Deep State' by Dr. Jerome Corsi,” referring to his own hugely successful series of “Killing” books.
[...]
“It’s a bestseller, it’s a bestseller,” O’Reilly emphasized, noting that the book reveals detailed evidence about the deep state war on Trump.
Corsi told O’Reilly he thinks Trump still beats the deep state.
“Trump always manages in the last act to pull it out and win,” Corsi said
“This is the biggest challenge of his life,” O’Reilly responded, before urging his viewers to check out the book.
Of course, as we noted, the real reason nobody will have Corsi on TV to promote his book -- published by Newsmax's book division, Humanix, something this article failed dto disclose -- is because he's an utterly discredited, conspiracy-mongering author whose main employment was formerly with WorldNetDaily and is currently with paranoid Alex Jones' Infowars.
Putting his now-meager promotional weight behind anything written by Corsi is not a good way for O'Reilly to rebuild his credibility, even if it might help him land a steady gig at Newsmax.
Newsmax Columnist Gushes All Over Melania Trump Topic: Newsmax
If Doug Wead was ever an objective reporter on the presidency, he stopped being so some time ago, what with his pro-Trump insta-book after the 2016 election and his bizarre conspiracy theory that there's a secret list of Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims.
Wead's pro-Trump sycophancy reaches new heights in a May 8 Newsmax tribute to Melania Trump about which the term "embarrassingly fawning" fails to do it justice:
We may be witnessing the unfolding story of one of America’s greatest first ladies, Melania Trump. And on this upcoming Mother’s Day, May 13, an example of a dedicated mother who puts her child ahead of other justifiably demanding, distractions.
Melania has been first lady for almost two years now. She continues to quietly and gracefully move through her public duties as wife of the president. While political storms rage all around her, she keeps her head held high, with poise, beauty, and a humble grace.
Her dignified performance is made all the more powerful when contrasted by a shrill and hysterical, corporate media, still angry that their chosen candidate lost the 2016 presidential election. Every negative thing her husband says and does is amplified while his remarkable economic and foreign policy record is ignored.
[...]
In history, Slovenians won their revenge by quietly succeeding, not through violent domination of their opponents.
This seems to be the first lady’s style. She maintains a dignity that makes her all the more mysterious when her critics rage. Sometimes she wins just by being still. And in some cases she is succeeding through her fashion sense, which is stunning, no easy thing.
So today, the media is in a frenzy about borrowed words from an old FTC document, as if it were sacred script that cannot be re-used. Tomorrow it will be something else.
Meanwhile, Melania, our beautiful, graceful first lady, whose life will one day cover entire bookshelves in libraries, can knock around the private quarters of the White House today, with a T-Shirt emblazoned with her wonderful new slogan for America’s youth, words that represent New York City meets Ljubljana — "Be best."
Apparently, Wead thinks he's "being best" when he slides into full Trump-fluffing mode.
Newsmax Gives Bolling The Image Rehab Treatment Topic: Newsmax
We've noted how Newsmax took a step toward trying to rehabilitate Eric Bolling with a fluffy profile that focused on his son's tragic death via drug overdose and omitted the inconvenient fact that Bolling was fired as a Fox News host over allegations of sexual harassment. Well, it looks like Newsmax is giving Bolling the patentedrehabtreatment with more interviews on Newsmax TV:
An April 10 article detailed Bolling's opinion on the possibility of President Trump firing special counsel Robert Mueller. It curiously described Bolling only as an "author," despite the fact that he wasn't plugging a book and his last book (of the two we's written) came out a year ago.
An April 25 article -- which also described Bolling as an "author" -- highlighted Bolling's stance on medical marijuana (pro, despite his son's opioid-related death).
A May 11 article described Bolling as a "commentator" and featured him commenting on President Trump and North Korea.
Going back a little farther in the archive, a March 22 article called Bolling a "former Fox News commentator," while a March 2 Newsmax article called Bolling a "former Fox News anchor." Neither of these articles mentioned how Bolling earned that status.
It appears the last reference at Newsmax to Bolling's disgraceful departure from Fox News is a Feb. 20 article calling Bolling a "Conservative political commentator and former Fox News host" but adding that "Bolling had exited Fox News after allegations surfaced that he had harassed colleagues."
UPDATE: In other image-rehab news, Bill O'Reilly is apparently in talks to have a nightly show on Newsmax TV. Newsmax has been courting O'Reilly formonths.
Not A Good Sign: Ed Klein Endorses Corsi's Trump Book Topic: Newsmax
In promoting Jerome Corsi's new pro-Trump conspiracy book fearmongering about the "Deep State," Newsmax has to sidestep the elephant in the room: Corsi's utter lack of crediblity as a diehard Obama birther who worked for WorldNetDaily and currently works for the whacked-out Alex Jones operation Infowars. So it apparently has to take endorsement for Corsi where it can.
Which brings us to this anonymously written April 30 Newsmax article:
Edward Klein once worked for one of the most liberal media organizations in America, The New York Times.
He was not just a reporter, but served as an editor of the powerful New York Times magazine.
His establishment credentials were incredible: Senior editor at Newsweek. Contributing editor at Vanity Fair.
He was the darling of the media world — until he told the truth.
When his two runaway New York Times best-sellers hit exposing Barack Obama, he was immediately shunned by the media establishment.
They turned on him because he wrote two books on Obama — "The Amateur" and "Blood Feud" — considered among the biggest exposés of the Obama years.
Now Ed Klein is endorsing a new book about President Donald Trump and the "Deep State" war against him.
It's Jerome Corsi's new "Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump."
Here is what truth-teller Edward Klein says:
"'Killing the Deep State' is an explosive must-read that not only exposes the insidious nature and goals of the shadow government, but also provides a road map to ensuring that the will of the people — through President Trump — succeeds."
The problem here is that Klein is not a truth-teller. He was not "shunned" by the "media establishment" because he told the truth about Obama; he was shunned because he couldn't back any of it up with on-the-record evidence and frequently uses anonymous, unverifiable sources for his most salacious claims.Oh, and one of the reasons he lost his job as an editor of the New York Times magazine is because it published a fabricated story under his watch.
Nevertheless, Newsmax keeps trying to make a silk purse out of this sow's ear:
Klein knows the consequences of telling the truth.
Now Jerome Corsi knows it, too.
He's been virtually banned by all the major TV networks — CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News refuses to put him on air or discuss his book.
Newsmax Touts Shoddy, Conspiratorial Right-Wing 'Documentaries' As The 'Top' Topic: Newsmax
Troy Anderson begins an April 4 Newsmax article claiming to document "Newsmax's Top 25 Conservative Documentaries of All Time," which he claims "will give Newsmax readers a discerning guide to the highest-grossing and most impactful conservative documentaries." But some of the most prominent films on Newsmax's list are shoddy hack jobs designed to destroy, not enlighten.
For instance, No. 3 on the list is Dinesh D'Souza's anti-Obama attack film "2016: Obama's America." But a fact-check showed that the film's thesis -- that Obama was heavily influenced by his father's anti-colonial beliefs -- "is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best." For instance, according to the fact-check: "In Hawaii, D'Souza asserts with no evidence, Obama sympathized with native Hawaiians who felt they had been marginalized by the American government when Hawaii was becoming a state. D'Souza also asserts — again with no evidence — that Obama had been coached to hold those views at Punahou, the prestigious prep school he attended in Honolulu."
No. 5 on the list is "The Clinton Chronicles," about which Anderson fawningly writes: "In this documentary film that grossed $10 million ($17 million in today’s money), producer Patrick Matrisciana examined various alleged improprieties of former President Bill Clinton while he was serving as governor of Arkansas. The film is widely considered the turning point in the 1994 Republican Revolution." In fact, the conspiracy-laden film was "overflowing with demonstrably false accusations" and baselessly suggested that Bill Clinton had his enemies and critics murdered.
No. 8 is the Ben Stein film "Expelled," which according to Anderson "argues that the scientific establishment suppresses those who believe in intelligent design and that the contemporary evolutionary consensus is part of a 'scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation’s laboratories and classrooms.'" But the film features a number of deceits, such as selectively quoting Charles Darwin to portray him as evil, and scientists who were lied to about appearing in the film.
Then again, factual accuracy was not a criterion for appearing on Newsmax's list -- the only criteria cited are "films that generated the highest box office totals and made a 'significant impact.'"
Newsmax doesn't explain why discredited films that peddle paranoia and hate are worthy of being elevated.
Newsmax Profiles Eric Bolling, Ignores His Sexual Harrassment Scandal Topic: Newsmax
The April 9 Newsmax item "5 Minutes With ... Eric Bolling" is as fluffy as they come:
You may know Eric Bolling from his time on TV as a financial analyst on CNBC and Fox Business, or maybe as a regular on Fox News shows like “The Specialists” or “The Five.”
The 55-year-old is also a New York Times best-selling author, and a familiar face of the opioid epidemic as he works to push awareness among parents and their children after losing his own son, Eric Chase, to an accidental overdose last year.
The commodities trader-turned-media commentator also counts President Donald Trump as a personal friend, and he’s been known to get the occasional shout-out on the presidential Twitter feed.
Missing from that description, as well as any of the questions that follow: The important fact that Bolling was fired by Fox News (euphemistically described as "amicably" parting ways) following allegations of sexual harrassment surfaced against him. The firing occurred the same day as his son's overdose.
The death of Bolling's son is sad and tragic, but it should not overshadow how Bolling lost his job -- espeicially since it appears that Bolling appears to be using this opioid awareness campaign as a way to rehabilitate his own image.
Newsmax Columnist Misleads on NRA's Lobbying Efforts Topic: Newsmax
Michael Dorstewitz is eager to defend the National Rifle Association from the March for Our Lives in his March 26 Newsmax column:
Although no one can doubt the sincerity of their passion and resolve, their rage is misdirected. The NRA isn’t at fault for Parkland or any other shooting. Blaming the NRA for a firearm death is akin to blaming the AAA for auto accidents.
Although the NRA is primarily engaged in firearm safety and education, it also has a lobbying arm — the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). But it’s not nearly as powerful as gun control advocates would have you believe.
The NRA-ILA doesn’t appear on OpenSecrets.org’s list of top 20 lobbying firms. Nor does hunting and shooting sports appear on the organization’s list of top 20 sectors. How about gun control? Nope, not a top 20 issue. Finally, guns and arms is absent from the organization’s list of top 20 industries.
Dorstewitz is misleading about how the NRA spends money on influence. PolitiFact serves up the actual numbers:
The NRA’s biggest chunk of spending on politics came from "outside spending," consisting largely of " independent expenditures" — efforts "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate." Often these take the form of campaign ads, but they are carried out without coordinating with the candidates they are supporting.
This type of spending vastly outpaces what the NRA spent on giving to candidates directly. The NRA spent $144.3 million on outside spending, such as independent expenditures, during that period.
In addition, the NRA since 1998 has reported spending a cumulative $45.9 million on federal lobbying, both for its in-house operations and the outside consultants it has retained.
If you add it all up -- candidate and party contributions, independent expenditures, and lobbying -- the NRA has spent $203.2 million on political activitiessince 1998.
So, yeah, it's pretty powerful.
Dorstewitz concluded his column by making another misleading claim:
The NRA receives nothing in federal funding and is responsible for zero deaths.
Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, received more than $500 million in fundingfrom the 2018 Omnibus bill, and destroys more than 300,000 human lives per year.
As we've repeatedly pointed out, federal money to Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortion, as Dorstewitz suggests, because it is forbidden by law.
Jerome Corsi's red-hot new book "Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump" is a runaway bestseller — but you'd never know that from reading The New York Times.
"Killing the Deep State" debuted last week at No. 10 on the non-fiction hardcover list compiled by Nielsen BookScan, the book industry's only nationally recognized sales tracking list.
And yet, the influential New York Times Book Review inexplicably has not listed "Deep State" on its hardcover bestseller list, despite the fact it outsold many of the books that did make its list.
[...]
Now Newsmax has learned that the Times has snubbed "Deep State" on its April 8 bestseller list as well.
Its second week of phenomenal sales should have put "Killing the Deep State" in the No. 5 position on the Times' list. But you won't see it there, either, despite having sold more than double the amount of copies of many others that are listed by the Times.
What Newsmax isn't telling you: As we noted the last time some right-wing author tried to play this game, the Times list generally downgrades titles driven by bulk sales. Corsi's book most certainly is that, given that Newsmax is currently selling it at a deep discount as a promotional tool to boost subscriptions to Newsmax's magazine.
Surprisingly, Newsmax did disclose that it owns Humanix Books, which published the Corsi book. Which means that Newsmax basically sold a lot of those books to itself, and we're guessing Newsmax didn't pay itself the retail price on those books. Vox reports that the Times also downgrades books sold outside traditional sales channels; selling books to yourself is definitely that.
If you have to sell books to yourself to pump up sales, it's not really a bestseller -- and that appears to be the Times' justification for not including the book on its list. Newsmax will never admit that, of course -- otherwise, it would have to concede all the self-dealing it's doing to falsely jack up sales.
The Donald Trump-Vladimir Putin press conference was such a disaster for Trump that Trump sycophants from all over (i.e. CNSNews.com) had to go into damage control mode. Even Newsmax had to rush to defend Trump in the aftermath.
Michael Reagan's July 14 Newsmax 
In his July 10 
The heavy lifting for Newsmax for the 
Apparently, publishing the dicredited Jerome Corsi's 
We've
We've 
If Doug Wead was ever an objective reporter on the presidency, he stopped being so some time ago, what with his 
In 
Troy Anderson begins an April 4 Newsmax 
Michael Dorstewitz is eager to defend the National Rifle Association from the March for Our Lives in his March 26 Newsmax 
Newsmax complains in a March 30 
