CNS Still Censoring Trump Officials' Crimes to Focus On Minor Crimes By Federal Employees Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com has a peculiar idea of "news." We've documented how CNS did no straight reporting on legitimate stories such as Trump associate Paul Manafort being convicted and sentenced on fraud charges, and it still has yet to report anything about the burgeoning scandals at the National Rifle Association despite having NRA board member Allen West as a columnist and senior fellow for its parent, the Media Research Center.
So what does CNS consider to be news? Relatively minor crimes committed by federal employees.
A May 16 blog post by Craig Bannister focused on how "A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) attorney habitually shoplifted, admitted to the crimes, but was never prosecuted, a Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General’s report published Monday finds." And an anonymously written June 6 article claimed that "An unnamed Department of Justice attorney stored and transmitted 'sexually explicit images' on a DOJ-issued laptop and cellphone, according to an investigative summary released today by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice."
CNS similarly obsessed last year over the minor crimes of federal employees while ignoring much more serious offenses allegedly committed by Trump administration officials.
These incidents would not warrant the kind of coverage CNS give them if they were to appear in a local newspaper. It seems that CNS is simply trying to denigrate federal workers because it can -- though it has to censor other crimes in order to do it.
MRC Vaguely Admits Acosta Has A Point, Still Can't Stop Hating Him Anyway Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro began a June 9 post with a relatively nuanced -- by MRC standards -- take on the media: "The liberal media are certainly not “the enemy of the people”, as President Trump often suggests, but they do operate as though they’re part of an opposition party in how viciously they cover him."
But then Fondacaro's Acosta Derangement Syndrome kicked in, and his post into yet another hatefest. He ranted that "showboater" Jim Acosta conducted a "vomit-inducing interview" with CNN's Brian Stelter to promote his new book, "Enemy of the People." He deliberately misinterpreted Acosta's statement that he wished his media colleagues challenged Trump's "enemy of the people" slur -- something even Fondacaro admits is a slur -- by claiming that Acosta had really "said he regretted how the media wasn’t more hostile against the President." Fondacaro then sneered: "At no point did Acosta say he regretted being a showboater and grandstander in the White House briefing room (or elsewhere)."
Then, again ignoring what he wrote in the very first sentence of his post, Fondacaro declared the title of Acosta's book to be "silliness" and huffed that "Acosta fell back onto the disgusting assertion that Trump had created an environment that could get journalists killed" -- even though he quoted Acosta saying that he gets death threatsand pointing out that someone mailed a pipe bomb to CNN headquarters.
We've documented how the MRC is shockingly callous about the safety of journalists who aren't kneejerk Trump shills, attacking them as self-centered to be so concerned.
If an MRC writer can't even last one sentence before descending into hate and childish insults, what good is it as a purveyor of "media research"?
CNSNews.com is so dedicated to pro-Trump stenography that it's news when it even implicitly criticizes President Trump -- for instance, managing editor Michael W. Chapman has a sad whenever Trump fails to hate the LGBT community as much has he does. This happened again when CNS turned on a lawyer nominated by Trump for a federal judgeship for a statement it deemed to be anti-Catholic (remember, Chapman and other CNS staffers consider themselves to be more Catholic than the pope).
President Donald Trump has nominated to a federal judgeship a lawyer who argued in court against a Catholic farmer who would not allow same-sex weddings to take place on his farm because same-sex marriage violates his Catholic beliefs.
Michael S. Bogren, the lawyer in question, represented the City of East Lansing, Mich., against the farmer, Steve Tennes.
In a document presented in court, Bogren equated a Catholic refusing to allow a same-sex wedding on his farm to a KKK member refusing to allow an interracial wedding.
The article went on to complain that "Bogren finally said that he did stand by his comparison," even though it also included a transcript of questioning from a Republican senator in which Bogren pointed out that "I represent clients, not causes. This is not ideological."
But CNS decided otherwise, and using its new crop of summer interns, sent them out to pester threeRepublicansenators and a Democratic one on whether they thought Bogren should withdraw his nomination because he "equated a Catholic family declining to host same-sex weddings on their farm to a KKK member engaging in racial discrimination."
CNS ultimately got its wish. Chapman happily wrote on June 11 that Bogren "withdrew his nomination to be a judge for the Western District of Michigan today." Chapman included a screenshot of the announcement made by Bogren's cousin, Margot Cleveland, which noted that the withdrawal was "a Pyrrhic victory at best." Chapman was silent on that, instead rehashing right-wing criticism of Bogren.
In fact, Cleveland pointed out that Bogren "made clear" that "his words were not his personal views, but his legal advocacy," adding:
I have seen people I respect calling Mike an anti-Catholic bigot. And that is shameful. You might disagree with his decision to represent a client, or the arguments made, but unjustly slandering a good man, is something we should never do in the defense of religious liberty. Judgeship or none, is of no matter; but reputation is. As I was asking my son to pray for Mike this weekend, and he asked why, I simplified the situation, and in his innocence he asked, "Why doesn't he tell people he likes Catholics?" Life isn't that simple-you can't repair a man's reputation tarnished by soundbites with a simple statement of the truth.
CNS couldn't be bothered to report the full story, so played a lead role in that slander.
UPDATE: CNS also followed up in a June 13 article by Mark Jennings, which misleadingly reduced the debate to claiming that "Bogren had compared Catholicism to KKK racism." Jennings didn't explain how active discrimination against a same-sex couple is a core tenet of Catholicism.
Drag Queen Story Hour Derangement Syndrome Topic: Newsmax
No child should be forced to confront radical ideas and controversial social movements before they are able to use the potty by themselves. We are talking about children who are settling in at the library to hear about Peppa Pig and Horton hearing a Who. This is a time when the little ones should be held in their mothers’ laps, sipping chocolate milk or juice from their sippy cups as they become mesmerized by the magic of carefully chosen words.
This is not a time when some man in spandex, tulle, and glitter should be confusing them with the sight of a dude with an Adam’s Apple and well-developed biceps touching up his makeup and hitching up his brassiere.
There is a concerted effort afoot to normalize the whole idea of gender fluidity.
Bill Lorraine, a physician and resident of Haverford Township, said he became very concerned when he first heard of Drag Queen Story Hour.
“Gender dysphoria is a serious psychological condition. It is not genetically determined, but rather is influenced by environmental factors,” Lorraine said. “Therefore exposing young children to something like drag queen story hour can predispose them to the development of gender dysphoria and the many negative consequences that go with it.”
Reading the web page of Drag Queen Story Hour, it is clear that this whole program is designed to normalize gender fluidity and make “drag queens” just one of many accepted expressions of our “identity.” To me, that is nothing more than adults trying to shove their agendas down the throats of little kids.
MRC Still Trying To Parse Trump's 'Nasty' Attack on Markle Topic: Media Research Center
Remember when the Media Research Center's Tim Graham embarrassed himself trying to parse President Trump's "nasty" remark about Meghan Markle? He wasn't the only one.
In a June 7 NewsBusters post, Clay Waters complained that the New York Times "upped the significance of the silly spat into a battle over ultimate truth" by pointing out that Trump flipped between confirming and denying what he said about Markle. Waters made sure to add his own defensive silliness: "Reading the full exchange makes one think Trump meant to say she had been “nasty” to him, not necessarily a nasty person."
Waters then took on the Times' suggestion that Trump was acting in an Orwellian manner through the hoary tradfition of the Clinton Equivocation:
By contrast, Bill Clinton’s infamous definition of the word “is” before a grand jury (“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” was a genuine Orwellian-style moment during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet it was apparently (according to nytimes.com) never referred to as Orwellian in a news story (acerbic columnist Maureen Dowd did make the link in a column titled “The Wizard of Is”).
Waters wasn't the only MRC writer to take offense at Orwell references to Trump denying what he clearly said. Joseph Chalfant retorted in a June 3 post after CNN's Jeffrey Toobin dropped an Orwell comparison:
When Trump denied that he called Markle nasty, Toobin stated that the U.S. was now in a “1984-like scenario.” 1984, the classical work by dystopian author George Orwell, describes a totalitarian nation that regularly utilizes slogans such as “Ignorance is Strength” and “Freedom is Slavery.” Even attempting to connect these two administrations is ludicrous. It's a hard reach to equate a scenario in which a president denies an offhanded comment about a figurehead of another nation to one in which an entire government’s role is oppresses its citizens.
And Nicholas Fondacaro referenced Toobin's claim before huffing: "Last time this author checked, Trump wasn’t locking people up for talking about his “nasty” comment and sending them to be re-educated."
WND Still Going The Conspiracy-Theory Route to Defend Corrupt Ex-Congresman Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily is still clinging to its conspiracy theory that corrupt ex-congressman (and longtime WND buddy) Steve Stockman was railroaded by the "Deep State" on 23 charges of financial fraud and other related charges that, in the words of defender Rachel Alexander, "almost anyone" could face. (Of course, most people are actually committing mail fraud and money laundering on the scale Stockman was accused of doing).
As we noted, Alexander launched another defense of Stockman in a May 29 column, again insisting he was targeted by "corrupt, left-leaning prosecutors in the Department of Justice" and begging President Trump and Attorney General William Barr to "thoroughly clean out the DOJ from top to bottom."Alexander's column was one long excuse-maker, summed up by the assertion that "Stockman complied with very complex, technical laws – but prosecutors chose to interpret those laws differently to confuse the jury."
This was followed by an anonymously written June 9 article that touted "A new friend-of-the-court brief, filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where his conviction is being challenged, explains that using the precedents the government set during its prosecution of Stockman will make it easy to attack people if they are engaged in 'ideological, political, or even religious education, discourse, advocacy, and missions.'" The article added:
The new brief, prepared by American Target Advertising, was joined by former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, L. Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center, Floyd Brown of American Fight Back, former U.S. Office of Personnel Management chief Donald Devine, historian William Federer, Dolin Hanna of Let Freedom Ring, Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots Action, Colby May of the American Center for Law & Justice, U.S. Rep. Bob McEwen, R-Ohio, Rick Scarborough of Rick Scarborough Ministries and Richard Viguerie of American Target Advertising.
Note the appearance of Bozell as a signatory -- he normally doesn't hang out with this particular group of mostly far-right activists, endeavoring as he does to present himself as the face of respectable conservatism.
There's also other odd names that signed onto the brief. Joining Rick Scarborough as a clergy signatory is Chuck Baldwin, although both are involved in right-wing politics. Also signing on to the brief is someone named Arthur D. Ally; he operates the Timothy Plan, which offers "biblically responsible investing" designed to "ensure that no money is invested in companies that are supportive of ideals that are contrary to our Biblical moral imperative."
The fact that a few right-wing bigwigs signed onto an amicus brief doesn't mean this is any less of a conspiracy theory.
MRC Still In Damage Control Over Trump And The Central Park Five Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center just can't seem to give up pushing a factually flawed story about Donald Trump and the Central Park Five. Karen Townsend takes a stab at it in a June 3 post, motivated by a scene in the miniseries about the case, "When They See Us":
Shortly after the Central Park attack, private citizen and real estate developer Donald Trump becomes a part of the story when he pays $85,000 for full-page ads in the city’s newspapers advocating for the return of the death penalty. The mother of one of the boys arrested for the rape sees a television interview with Trump as he says, “You better believe I hate the people that took this girl and raped her brutally.”
When another one of the mothers of the Central Park Five boys is asked by a reporter what she thinks of Donald Trump calling for the death penalty for her son, she is shocked and bursts into tears while a spokesman dismisses Trump as "a real estate hustler."
Later, at home, the mother and a friend have a drink together with the television on in the background. The two women hear Donald Trump tell a reporter that he would like the opportunity to be "a well-educated black" because he thinks they "do have an actual advantage today.”
"They need to keep that bigot off tv, is what they need to do," the mother angrily responds. "That devil wants to kill my son," she says later.
A bit of levity is added for the viewer when the friend tells her not to worry about Trump’s remarks because “his 15 minutes [are] almost up.”
It is false to claim that Trump called for the boys to be killed. For one thing, he was calling for bringing back the death penalty in the state of New York in general. He said in an interview with Larry King at the timethat he supported the death penalty only "if the woman died" and if perpetrator was "at a certain age. If they're minors, they should be treated very strongly." All of the boys were minors at the time and would not have been subject to the death penalty if it were reinstated, anyway.
Don't forget, in 1989, New York City was experiencing an extremely high crime rate, and residents were losing patience with city efforts to get it under control. The subject of the death penalty was a popular topic of conversation at the time so it wasn’t particularly unusual that Trump weighed in with his opinion.
As we pointed out the last time the MRC did this, Trump's newspaper ad did reference the Central Park attack, the ran just a few months after it occurred, and the headline on it blared, "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!" It seems pretty clear who Trump was talking about, even if he didn't explicitly state it. Further, according to a CNN article on Trump's appearance on Larry King, "Trump told King his newspaper ads were not 'pre-judging' the five teens, but rather advocating for their execution if they were to be found guilty."
To repeat: Even though he admitted that the death penalty doesn't apply to minors, Trump appeared to calling for it anyway and only later clarified he didn't want it to apply to minors. It's a muddled message, something Trump is prone to -- muddled enough that the MRC should know better than to continue to make these kneejerk defenses of Trump over this.
Newsmax Gives Dershowitz More Unchallenged Space To Defend Himself Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax has defended lawyer Alan Dershowitz in the past over his involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking scandal. It serves up another defense in an anonymously written June 8 article is essentially a rewritten, one-sided version of Dershowitz's attempt to remove the lawyers of a woman who has accused him of having sex with her while she was underage:
Harvard Law professor and well-known trial lawyer Alan Dershowitz asked a New York federal court Friday to remove Boies Schiller Flexner LLP from a case in which the firm is representing a woman who claims Dershowitz sexually molested her as a child.
Dershowitz has been accused of being involved in billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking ring by an attorney for one of Epstein’s victims. The lawyer who represents the woman, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, in early March claimed in federal court that testimony from other witnesses will show Dershowitz's involvement in the alleged trafficking of "his close friend Jeffrey Epstein."
In a recent blog on Newsmax, Dershowitz wrotethat for him the experience of being falsely accused of sexual misconduct was actually worse than being falsely accused of murder.
“In my case, two women I never met were put up to falsely accusing me for obvious financial gain,” he wrote. “They both had histories of making up stories about famous people for money, and of committing perjury.”
This was followed by a full version of Dershowitz's statement. No opposing view was permitted, even though there the Miami Herald has stood by its reporting on the Epstein case and pointed out that in a meeting with the Herald, Dershowitz "read select passages from voluminous documents that he said vindicated him. He declined to let the journalists examine the documents or take copies." Not exactly the behavior of someone who's completely innocent -- after all, Dershowitz was Epstein's attorney and helped put together a plea deal that got Epstein just a year in prison for his crimes, meaning he's no peripheral player.
Further, Newsmax never followed up on the fate of Dershowitz's motion: it got quickly thrown out because it broke the judge's rules of requiring a pre-motion conference limiting supporting documentation to 20 pages.
MRC's Media-Bashing Book Overlaps Levin's Media-Bashing Book Topic: Media Research Center
This has to be a little embarassing: Mark Levin's anti-media book "Unfreedom of the Press" was released on May 21. Just two weeks later, Levin's buddies at the Media Research Center, Tim Graham and Brent Bozell, released their own book covering much of the same territory, "Unmasked."
That's a pretty short promotion window to avoid direct competition between two books. The fact that Levin's book was released four days before a long holiday weekend doesn't give much time for promotion either (though Graham, Bozell and the MRC did what they could for him).
The MRC is doing the usual things to promote the Graham-Bozell book: propagandisticarticles at the its "news" division, CNSNews.com, a promotional overview of the book at NewsBusters (which suggests it's basically a condensation of the past three years of NewsBusters posts), and media appearances that stay inside the right-wing bubble that guarantee neither Bozell nor Graham will be asked anything but softball questions by sycophantic interviewers.
A side note: "Unmasked" is published by Humanix Books, a division of Newsmax. But the MRC didn't disclose this fact when mentioning Newsmax on its main content website, NewsBusters. A Feb. 19 post touted an media appearance by Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy, and a May 4 column by Jeffrey Lord asserted that "Newsmax is indeed a quite serious news outlet," but neither disclosed that Newsmax was publishing Graham and Bozell's book.
We'll be taking a closer look at the book in the near future, so stay tuned.
WND Attacks Liberals As 'The New Barbarians' Topic: WorldNetDaily
The current issue of WorldNetDaily's sparsely read Whistleblower magazine is about "The New Barbarism," which claims to argue that "in every meaningful way, today’s far left, which has already taken over – one might even say 'raided and devoured' – the Democratic Party, is now dragging America down a barbaric road to ruin."
The lead essay by WND managing editor David Kupelian is yetanother example of his liberal-bashing claptrap , and the errors start with the very first paragraph: "'Socialism or barbarism!' That’s the classic Marxist theme, the title of many far-left books, and the stark existential choice posed by socialists of all stripes: Either adopt our enlightened way – or sink into barbarism." It's actually the title of one book, not "many." But exaggeration is the order of the day for Kupelian; he goes on to suggest that today's liberals are barely different from the murderous regimes of Mao Zedong and Pol Pot.
Kupelian then claimed that among the "institutions targeted for destruction" by liberals is "American history," adding: "Everyone has watched in amazement over the last several years as activists on the left have waged an ongoing campaign to eliminate America’s historical memory, starting with toppling Civil War statues across the country." As he has before, Kupelian is confusing the winning and losing sides in the Civil War. Nobody's tearing down monuments to the winners of the Civil War -- it's only those honoring the Confederacy, the side that fought a war against the United States and lost.
Kuupelian also complained that "The Democrats have never accepted the election of Donald Trump as president – as demonstrated by the incredibly damaging Russia collusion hoax, which in reality has constituted a full-fledged attempted coup d’etat." Kupelian seems to have forgotten that his boss, Joseph Farah, never accepted the election of Barack Obama as president and that he helped Farah attempt a coup d'etat by relentlessly pushing the birther hoax.
Kupelian also ranted about "the Islam problem," huffing, "Islam, by its very nature, and as history proves again and again, tends not to assimilate but to conquer. It’s politically incorrect in the extreme to say so, but 'barbarian invasion' is what Islam has specialized in for most of the last 14 centuries."
Kupelian still hasn't figured out that kneejerk, factually dubious, right-wing ranting like this is one key reason WND is going down the tubes.
NewsBusters Blogger Defends Author's Dubious Claim About MLK Topic: NewsBusters
Clay Waters complains in a June 5 NewsBusters post:
The New York Times suddenly distrusts left-wing scholar and Pulitzer Prize-winning Martin Luther King Jr. biographer David Garrow. Why? Because the scholar unearthed F.B.I archives suggesting the civil rights icon once laughed along as a colleague raped a woman in his presence in a hotel.
Garrow’s bombshell piece was rejected by many news outlets, including the Times (which actually ran an pre-emptive op-ed against it, evidently before the paper’s skeptical news piece was even posted). It was eventually picked up by the British magazine Standpoint.
While Garrow relied on summaries of wiretaps, not the original tapes, which are sealed until 2027, he argued there is no obvious reason to embellish such details, since such records would not have been expected to have any public or historical value.
First: Waters provides no evidence to back up his claim that Garrow is a "left-wing scholar" -- instead, he seems to boost the opposite view by noting that "his biographies have become more critical of liberal heroes." Second: As we've documented when WorldNetDaily similarly latched onto Garrow's claim, there is plenty of reason to suspect a claim might be "embellished": The FBI was engaged in a disinformation war against King at the time of the illicit bugging incident Garrow documented. Garrow is relying only a summary of a wiretap; the tapes themselves are under seal until 2027.
Waters then complained that the Times article "threw in some extraneous personal attacks against Garrow" by noting Garrow's alleged mistreatment of his co-workers. As if NewsBusters' publisher, the Media Research Center, has never leveled much more personal attacks on its most despised targets.
Cody Leach started off a June 3 CNSNews.com blog post in mostly promising fashion, reporting that "Conservative comedian Steven Crowder has found himself under investigation by YouTube after accusations of racism and homophobia surfaced over the weekend from Vox host Carlos Maza, who hosts the media literacy series “Strikethrough.”
But Leach then drops the ball, noting that Maza said that "dvery single video" Crowder made purporting to debunk his series "has included repeated, overt attacks on my sexual orientation and ethnicity" -- but then doesn't cite any examples, stating only that Maza's allegation was followed by "a long string of tweets."
In fact, Maza detailed that Crowder has mocked him as a "lispy queer" and worn a "Socialism Is For Fags" T-shirt during his anti-Maza attacks, as well as attacking his ethnicity by calling him a "anchor baby," and that Crowder's followers have doxxed him. Maza also stated that his ire is mostly targeted at YouTube for not enforcing its anti-harassment policies against Crowder, which he claimed was out of fear that it "get them accused on anti-conservative bias."
Instead, Leach played into that right-wing narrative -- which CNS' owner, the Media Research Center, pushes despite the fact it's not actually true -- by uncritically allowing Crowder to play the victim, writing that Crowder "tweeted a video with the caption “Vox is trying to ban my channel.” The tweet was followed by several tweets and retweets of similar content." Leach weirdly didn't quote from Crowder's video either.
Also weirdly, neither Leach nor anyone else at CNS has done a follow-up on this story. YouTube has since demonetized Crowder's videos, meaning he can no longer make money off them though he is still allowed to post them.
MRC Shouts 'Pedophilia!' At Snapchat Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center knows a good, inflammatory narrative when it sees one, and it saw a huge one it could smear Snaspchat with, as Corinne Weaver detailed in a June 3 post:
A tech company has made a disturbing statement during the left-centric “Pride Month.”
For Snapchat, the LGBTQ might also include pedophiles. In the campaign for “Love Has No Labels” held by Snapchat, one of the options wasa “Love Has No Age” filter. While this filter appears to be defunct as of June 3, conservatives on Twitter pointed out the option over the weekend of June 1-2. Twitter user Ashley St. Clair posted a video of herself with the “Love has No Age” filter.
The filter had the options to say that love had no gender, race, or religion, as part of the mass-marketed Pride Month that infiltrates businesses and social media in June. But age did not seem to fit in the list, unless it was meant to justify pedophilia.
Needless to say, Weaver offered no actual evidence that Snapchat intended the filter to "justify pedophilia." Instead, she smeared Snapchat further, asserting that it "has a reputation for enabling pedophiles on the app," again baselessly portraying Snapchat as deliberately catering to pedophiles.
Such claims could be legally actionable of they cannot be proven, -- indeed, Weaver indeed provides no evidence for her suggestion that Snapchat is deliberately enabling pedophiles. The MRC might want to have a chat with a libel lawyer about this.
WND Calls Woman The 'British Ann Coulter,' Like That's A Good Thing Topic: WorldNetDaily
An anonymously written June 9 WorldNetDaily article touts, under the headline "'British Ann Coulter' to speak in U.S.":
Katie Hopkins, the British media personality whose unabashed defense of European civilization makes her a constant target of scorn, is scheduled to speak in central Connecticut on June 19.
A documentary filmmaker, author and columnist, she warned at a forum last year at CPAC that American is in danger of becoming like Western Europe.
“Do not become us. Do not let yourselves fall as the U.K. has fallen,” she said.
There is no cost to attend the event, but registration is required. Due to security concerns, the venue, near Hartford, will be disclosed on June 18 or the morning of June 19 to those who register.
Weirdly, the article never quotes anyone calling Hopkins the "British Ann Coulter" -- that claim only appears in the headline.
Of course, the whole "unabashed defense of European civilization" thing is a dogwhistle for hating Muslims, not that WND will honestly tell you that; it does obliquely hint at it by claiming that Hopkins' talk will address "the immediate threats the mass immigration of people who refuse to assimilate pose to families," specifically migrants with "mostly with low educational qualifications and with a different cultural background." And a quick Google search reveals that Hopkins somehow manages to be even worse than Coulter.
She's so hateful that the notoriously right-wing (and notoriously less-than-factual) Daily Mail dropped Hopkins as a columnist after she called for a "final solution" after a bombing in Manchester by a radical Islamist killed 22 people. She also was ordered to pay $164,000 in damages and legal costs to a food writer whom she libeled by falsely claiming she supported the defacing of a war memorial.She has since declared herself insolvent.
Which begs the question of how Hopkins can afford a transatlantic flight if she's broke. Too bad WND doesn't have any reporters to check that out.
MRC's Graham Spins for Trump: 'He Meant 'Nasty' In A Good Way! Topic: Media Research Center
How in the tank is the Media Research Center for President Trump? It's even trying to explain away his description of Meagan Markle as "nasty."
Tim Graham (of course) complained in a June 1 post that "CNN and others leaped at the chance to exaggerate comments by President Trump about Meghan Markle, the former American actress who married Prince Harry and is now known as the Duchess of Sussex." But Trump did, in fact, say of Markle that "I didn't know that she was nasty" -- no exaggeration necessary.
And here's the way Graham goes into cleanup mode: "It's not misquoting the president to say he called Markle nasty (or her comments nasty). But it was clear from the exchange that he had no ill will toward the duchess at this point."
See? Trump meant "nasty" in a good way! It's all about context!
This, by the way, from the same guy who gets hypocritically gets mad when journalists put the words of non-conservative politicians in context when it serves his right-wing agenda not to do so.
And it wouldn't be Graham without a dose of irrelevant whataboutism: "Obama brought the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on it, and the pro-Obama media didn't blink." But Graham's sudden concern for context evaporated just as suddenly -- the iPod also contained a selection of Broadway show tunes (to accompany another gift, a songbook signed by Broadway composer Richard Rodgers) and video of the queen's 2007 visit to the U.S.
And, of course, Obama never referred to any member of the royal family as "nasty" -- not even in a way that could be taken out of context.