Will the Press Now Focus on Trump's Cognitive Issues?

Question to the  Biden haters. Now that he's withdrawn from the race, will the media NOW turn its attention to the cognitive issues presented by the rapist?  My guess is no. They instead will find something to smear Harris with.

Clinton Smear Debunked

Did you see this from the Daily Beast regarding the faux scandal the NYTIMES tried to drum up on Sec. Clinton?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-email-scandal-not-so-fast

''But let’s hold on a second. A close reading of the Times piece reveals one potential big hole in the case . . . You have to know how to read these things, and if you do know how to read them, there’s a big question here .....''

The article says that there were “new” regulations that Clinton was supposed to abide by.''

''New''? Hmmmmm.......... How new? For some reason the NYTIMES LEFT OUT that part.

Why? You ask?

Because they were SO fucking new, they didn't take effect until OVER A YEAR after she'd left govt service.

SO much for THAT smear, eh?

Fox, Ethics, and Images

The Seattle Times caught Fox News using photo-doctored images to make the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone appear to be a war zone. After the Times asked Fox to explain, Fox removed the altered images.



"Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations."



https://tinyurl.com/y8bbtksl

MTP - Right Wing Bias

9062   PM:   Mwjohnson   [Quote]     -- 5:38am -- Sun, May 3, 20 pst
Meet The Press has always been a very liberal show.



____



Now for the truth:



"Pro-Republican Bias Causes Meet The Press Ratings To Crumble To Lowest Level Since 1992"

https://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/12/pro-republican-bias-meet-press-ratings-crumble-lowest-level-1992.html

Right Wing Smear Machine Targets Warren

Paul Waldman wrote: ''This is a
process of trial and error: Throw out a hundred fake “scandals” and see
which one captures people’s attention, then hammer it again and again in
the hope it will become all people think of when they think of the
Democrat. If there’s something actually scandalous there, that’s great,
but if there isn’t, that’s okay, too. … Between now and next November,
they’ll float a hundred more stories like this one.''




https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/08/fake-scandal-about-elizabeth-warren-shows-where-republicans-are-headed/ 



We saw
it in 1999-2000 with the smears of Gore; we saw it in 2016 with the
smears of Hillary; and we're seeing it now with the smears of Warren.  

 

https://www.mediamatters.org/washington-free-beacon/right-wing-medias-latest-elizabeth-warren-smear-shows-how-bogus-claims-will

No Evidence to Support Biden Smear

Even one of the chief media whores at the NYTIMES was forced to admit there is no evidence to support the right wing smear of Biden.

"There is no evidence that Mr. Biden intentionally tried to help his son when he pushed for the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor, who was widely seen in the West as corrupt." - Michael Crowley and Kenneth P. Vogel

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/21/us/politics/trump-whistleblower-complaint.html

Trump Admits Fox News Worked for Him

From Huffington Post: "Trump Tweets ‘Fox Isn’t Working For Us’ After Amicable Interview With DNC Staffer"

“The New Fox News is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!” 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tweets-fox-isnt-working-for-us-after-its-amicable-interview-with-dnc-staffer_n_5d66939ee4b01fcc690d2f5d



The observant reader will note that Fox News could not STOP working for Trump were it not at some point WORKING for him.

How Many Trips Did Clinton Take on Epstein's Plane?

In looking at this famous smear of the smears of Clinton over his traveling with Epstein, we discover an interesting fact.



Did Clinton REALLY take over two dozen flights with Clinton?  It depends on how you count them.



Why is the # of flights SO HIGH? Because the Clinton-haters count individual legs of a trip as a separate flight. For instance, a trip they took in fall of 2002 was counted as THIRTEEN FLIGHTS!



Another trip close to the same time was counted as FOUR FLIGHTS! Another counted as TWO flights!



Another earlier that year was counted as TWO flights; and another that same year was counted as FIVE flights.



So, using this standard, a person flying from Tucson to NYC might be said to have taken THREE flights.  One from Tuscon to Atlanta; one from Atlanta to Chicago; and then one from Chicago to NYC. Yes, technically, individual legs of a trip are flights. The casual reader, though, won't THINK to fact-check these smears of Clinton to see how many TRIPS there were. 



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/flight-manifests-reveal-bill-clinton-traveled-with-epstein-six-times-not-the-four-times-he-admitted

Yes, the Media Tried to Destroy the Clintons Early On

This was reported by Ellen Goodman in March, 1992. Whoever said that the media didn't go after the Clintons before he was elected president is either a moron or a liar.



"At this moment, I am told there are a dozen or more reporters in Arkansas searching for improprieties in the working relationship of a lawyer wife and a governor husband."



https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/03/21/hillarys-ordeal/99cc3618-5d95-45f5-8a10-c004274f965a/?utm_term=.052e97cfdd07

Media Whores Come to Trump's Rescue

Two headlines:

1)''MUELLER FINDS NO TRUMP-RUSSIA CONSPIRACY'' (NYTIMES)

2) ''Mueller finds no conspiracy, attorney general says'' (WAPO)

One is stating a verifiable fact; one is not. See if you can figure it out.  



https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1110008685546426379

CNN to Viewers - Bernie Sanders Is a Democrat

No, despite what the networks tell us, Bernie Sanders is NOT a Democrat! This is straight from his official senate website:  "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)"

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/



Why would CNN do this?  Do they believe it will help Sanders re-elect Trump?



Is CNN with Russia on this? Does CNN TOO support Trump and Sanders? Remember -- that's who the Russians supported!



 In the indictment filed by Mueller, Russian agents were  instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them).’”



https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

CaG Sceptical of NYTIMES

8564   PM:   Christians   [Quote]     -- 2:38pm -- Mon, Aug 20, 18 pst

Christians are Good

Don't believe everything you read in the NY Times.

CaG Agrees US Press Stinks

I remember right wingers howling at me for claiming our press had fallen down on the job. Now CaG agrees with me.

8569 PM: Christians [Quote] -- 2:41pm -- Mon, Aug 20, 18 pst
Christians are Good
Generally the reporting of news in America is third-world standard. Almost any foreign press will do a better job.  

CNN, Lemon, and Clinton Rules

Did you notice anything unusual about Lemon's moderating of the debate between Clinton and Sanders?

At one point in the proceeding, Lemon challenged Clinton on a crime bill passed while she was NOT a part of the government.

He asked why should we trust her now after supporting this bill. She handled Lemon's snarky attack with grace as usual.

We couldn't WAIT to see Lemon challenge Sanders on the same bill.

My my! If Hillary's in hot water for favoring the bill, then SURELY Sanders would be in hot water over his VOTING FOR it; right?

But wait!

Lemon pretended NOT EVEN TO KNOW that Sanders voted for the bill.

I'd say after that performance, Lemon would be hard pressed to moderate a debate for high school student government president.

Gergen: Opposition Research "Unsavory" when Clinton Does It

“I do think that, yes, it is true that campaigns do a lot of opposition research and sometimes pay for it, so there's nothing earth shaking about that. What I do think about this . . .  to find that the Clinton campaign and the DNC have been paying for this, has an unsavory quality about it, and it looks like the Democrats really were trying to, you know, frame Trump in some way.” - David Gergen, CNN Political Analyst - October 25, 2017

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1710/25/cnr.01.html

Why They're Called 'Right Wing Media Whores'

On "Meet the Press," NBC's Chuck Todd asked NY Senator Schumer shouldn't the Democrats be willing to give in to the republicans since the republicans are in the majority.

It reminded me of the time that the TV talking heads asked republicans shouldn't you give in to the Democrats since they are the majority party. No wait --- when the Democrats are in charge no TV talking head suggested that the republicans should give in to the Democrats. No, instead, they encouraged the republicans to dissent, and they climbed right on board with their friends in attacking the Democrats for attempting to lead. Oh, how I wish there were at least ONE liberal news outlet.

“The Democrats are not in the majority in Congress. Aren’t--don't--don’t you almost have an obligation that you probably have to give a little bit more since, you know -- “  - Chuck Todd; Meet the Press; October 22, 2017

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-october-22-2017-n813071

Hannity Admits - He's Easier on Republicans

In a Media Matters piece, Brendan Karet,
discusses an interivew Sean Hannity did, in which it admitted it -- if
he could question Hillary, he'd be MUCH tougher on her than on a
republican.

In an accompanying video,
Hannity defended his softball interviews with Donald Trump and other
candidates, claiming that ThinkProgress and RedState cherry-picked his
interviews. Later Hannity admitted that he would interview Hillary
Clinton “a hundred times harder than any Republican, because I believe
the Republicans represent, and have a far better vision, one that I
agree with, I just have less disagreement with them,” concluding "I'm
not a journalist, I'm a talk show host."

Clinton Rules v Sanders Rules

Al Sharpton's interview with Jeff Weaver 4/10/2016

The Sanders campaign has a problem.

Just watched Sanders campaign advisor say that Sanders should be excused for voting YES on the 1994 crime bill -- because he stood on the floor and spoke out against mass incarceration.

So, naturally, the MSNBC host immediately fired back, "So Hillary can be excused for her Iraq Resolution vote since she spoke out on the Senate floor against attacking Iraq; right?"?

No, wait --- they didn't dare do that.  They know Hillary must be held to a different standard and to bring that up would be against "The Clinton Rules of Journalism."  That rule allows -- other congressman can be excused for voting FOR a bill or resolution if they also speak out against the parts they don't  like -- and that's okay.  But |NOT| Hillary Clinton; a different rule applies to her.

They Hate the Clintons

Thanks to Eric Boehlert for this:

"More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.""    https://www.mediamatters.org/legacy/media-matters-jamison-foser-121



‘’The media's apparent belief that it is acceptable to say any damn thing they want, true or false, as long as they say it about the Clintons, has become known as the "Clinton Rules of Journalism."’’ http://mediamatters.org/items/200802220015?f=h_column



‘'Why had the Times granted anonymity to the ''New York Democrats''? The Times didn't say -- and Chris Matthews didn't give a damn; he was just thrilled that the paper had issued its ''warning.'' Of course, back then, the targets of the Times' article were the Clintons, and Chris Matthews very much does not like the Clintons. 



Now the subject of a Times article relying on unnamed sources is McCain, who Matthews thinks ''deserves'' to be president. And so Matthews now righteously denounces the same sourcing techniques that he didn't mind at all when the subject was Clinton.'' http://mediamatters.org/items/200802220015?f=h_column



COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW (11/00): To “moderate,” according to Webster's, is to “keep within bounds.” That definition, however, can hardly be applied to the performance of NBC's Tim Russert in his role as moderator of the September 13 televised debate between the Democratic and Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate from New York.



Twenty minutes into the hour Russert pitched a question to Hillary Clinton that was breath-takingly out of bounds. Confronting her with a replay of her interview on the Today show in January 1998 - an interview in which the first lady had loyally backed her husband's initial denials of an affair with Monica Lewinsky and suggested that right-wing enemies were orchestrating the scandal - Russert first asked the senatorial candidate,“ Do you regret misleading the American people?” then went on to challenge her thusly: “In that same interview you said that those who were criticizing the president were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. Amongst those eventually criticizing the president were Joe Lieberman. Would you now apologize for branding people as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy?”



So gratuitous was the exhumation of an incident that most of the American people had long laid to rest; so specious was the logic of lumping together “critics,” “Joe Lieberman,” and “vast right-wing conspiracy”; so inappropriate was the question to the event at hand, that a viewer could only puzzle over Russert's judgment in raising the issue. In any case, whether Clinton or Lazio won that debate was anybody's guess. Far more obvious was that Russert - and journalism - lost.

CNN - Right Wing Meda Whores

Bill Clinton gives CNN an interview the main thrust of which is that Clinton disagreed with Bush's decision to go to war  against Iraq without first allowing UN inspectors to do their job. 

''I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

''I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said 

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."'

But then, CNN spins it around and says Clinton supported Bush's decision.

''(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war '' 

Simply amazing. *S* 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

In short - Bill Clinton told CNN at least THREE times that he disagreed with Dubya's decision to invade Iraq. Thus, CNN reports IN THE SAME article, Clinton "continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war.''