The same networks that spent 2,202 minutes of collective airtime to push the Russia Collusion Media-Hoax are refusing to cover the Senate Intelligence Committee bipartisan report, which found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The Media Research Center (MRC) did the research and found that between January 21, 2017, and February 10, 2019, “ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, and the NBC Nightly News [spent] 2,202 minutes on the Russia investigation [, which] accounted for nearly 19 percent of all Trump-related reporting [, and now] none of those three shows have even mentioned the investigation since NBC’s report came out on February 12.”
The same is true elsewhere on the left-wing networks.
“Neither CBS This Morning nor NBC’s Today have even acknowledged this new information from Senate investigators since the news broke on February 12,” MRC reports. “ABC’s Good Morning America briefly touched on it in a news brief totaling less than one minute on February 13.”
What’s especially fascinating is that NBC’s Ken Dilanian broke the original news of the Senate report, and NBC is still refusing to cover the story.
The reasons for this are quite obvious: the media know a reckoning is on the horizon, and they are buying time in the hopes of finding a way to wriggle out of it.
Anyone with even a lick of sense knew from the beginning that the Russia Collusion Media-Hoax was a hoax. Not only is the whole idea of it preposterous; everything involving Russia and the Trump campaign points to the opposite of a conspiracy. Look at the Trump Tower meeting. If there was a conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, why was Rob Goldstone, a British publicist, needed as an intermediary to set up the meeting?
But, But, He loves Putin
If there was all this collusion between Trump and Putin, why was Michael Cohen left to send proposals to blind email addresses regarding the proposed Trump Tower deal in Moscow?
Even the stuff we are told is the most “sinister” proof of collusion points in the opposite direction.
But that is not what the media have been telling us for the last two years.
Rather, again and again and again, they have promised that Watergate is right around the corner, that the other shoe is about to drop (and please ignore the fact that the first shoe has yet to drop); have told us not to worry because the aberrational nightmare, the virus in the system, the national mistake that is President Trump is about to be removed.
For two years the media have been selling the Resistance a bill of goods and have gone so far as to manufacture a mountain of fake news to keep these suckers on the hook.
So, no, they are not going to cover a bipartisan report that debunks their hoax, especially one as detailed as this one, that involved two years, 200 interviews, and a gazillion documents.
Democratic House Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries defended his party’s push for a universal background check bill Wednesday, claiming that any enforcement of the legislation — including federal firearm registration — will be left to the Department of Justice to decide.
Efforts to expand federal firearm background checks to all private sales could eventually lead to federal firearms registration, a potential that worries some Second Amendment advocates and sympathetic Republicans.
“The Department of Justice and the FBI will have primary responsibility for enforcing the requirements that we hope will be enacted into law consistent with the values of the overwhelming majority of the American people,” Jeffries said. (RELATED: Congress To Take Up Gun Control This Week)
“This is a discussion that we should be having in the United States Congress as it relates to the gun violence epidemic in the United States of America, particularly on the eve of the tragedy that took place in Parkland,” Jeffries continued.
Republican North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, author of the National Reciprocity Act of 2017, said in response to Jeffries, “That sounds to me like a registry is a possibility if you have an attorney general that wants one.”
House Judiciary Committee members marked up the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 on Wednesday, previously citing the upcoming anniversary of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting on Feb. 14. (RELATED: House To Move Forward With Gun Control Proposals)
“How would H.R. 8 be enforced? If someone obtains a gun without getting a background check, it would seem that’s not going to come to light until that gun is used,” Republican Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said during the markup committee hearing.
While the current bill restricts any formation directly or indirectly of a national firearms registry, Democrats on the committee see this legislation as a first step and support a federal registry in some way.
Democratic California Rep. Karen Bass, a fellow Judiciary Committee member, says the enforcement question is a “good one” but could not provide information “beyond ATF and the resources around that.” When asked by the Caller if she would prefer to see a mandatory federal firearms registry, Bass replied: “Not right now.”
“The truth of the matter is the gun is registered to somebody,” Democratic Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond, another Judiciary Committee member, told the Caller. “So, if somebody wanted to violate the law then that’s on them, but to detect that they violated [the law] when the new person either registers it or are caught in possession of it, the question will become how did they get the gun and if they say they purchased it.”
He added, “The question becomes why didn’t they go through the required federal law?”
Richmond says he would also like to see a mandatory federal gun registry.
“I would not mind seeing a gun registry. I really wouldn’t. I think I filed that bill when I was in the Louisiana legislature. I think I filed a registry. I think I filed ballistic fingerprints and assault weapons ban. So, I’m at the other end of the spectrum. I don’t mind.”
Richmond, though, says he does not think Democrats in Congress are ready to move legislation to support a federal firearms registry right now.
“This bill sounds good when you hear universal background checks. It sounds like a great idea, but once you realize that every gun sale in America, commercial gun sale, has a background check,” said Hudson, “and if someone’s not running a background check, they’re breaking the law. Let’s enforce the laws we have.”
Hudson also warned that an attorney general can financially exclude individuals from performing background checks, thereby denying firearms to individuals.
“Any attorney general and any local officials could set the price for running a background check for a person so high that individuals couldn’t afford to do it. So, what if they said it cost $5000 to run a background check at a gun store? Well, most Americans can’t afford that,” Hudson noted. “So those are two of the different levers that they intend to use to limit law-abiding gun owners from purchasing guns.”
The man who accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of being “extremely careless” with her use of email servers reportedly says there is “zero chance” she will ever be charged for it.
Former FBI Director James Comey repeated that claim twice in a Sarasota, Fla. town hall Monday, according to the Washington Examiner.
Ousted FBI director James Comey is sworn in during a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill June 8, 2017
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
“There is zero chance, zero chance, on the facts in the Hillary Clinton case, that she would be prosecuted,” Comey said. “You are out of your mind if you don’t think the FBI wanted to make a case if we could. The facts weren’t there. Period. Full stop.” (RELATED: Sources: China Hacked Clinton’s Private Email Server)
But a federal court recently asserted that Clinton must answer more questions about her emails.
Comey has never approved of Clinton’s choice of a private email server and even admitted at a July 2016 news conference that someone of less political stature than the former first lady might be charged.
“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” he said at the time.
While continuing to provide assurance for Clinton, Comey lashed out at President Donald Trump, saying he was “one of the worst listeners as a leader,” Fox 13 reported.
U.S. President Donald Trump smiles as he walks on South Lawn of the White House, before his departure to the Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center, in Washington, U.S., Feb. 2, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Comey, who continues to tour the country promoting his book, “A Higher Loyalty,” portrayed himself as a reluctant warrior for political independence, claiming he really eschews the spotlight.
“I thought the easiest thing for me to do would be to be quiet. I don’t love my life as a semi-employed celebrity, but I would be a coward if I didn’t speak,” he told the crowd. “I’m really worried about the impact this president has on our values that we all have in common.”
CNN anchor Christopher Cuomo, host of Cuomo Primetime, likened red baseball caps embroidered with President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” to t-shirts which read “I Hate Black People” on Thursday evening.
A partial transcript is as follows:
CHRISTOPHER CUOMO: It’s a hat with four words on it, but they can mean a lot to people. I’m talking about the president’s MAGA hat. Now, we hear of a chef in San Mateo, California, saying “you wear that hat into my place, you’re not getting service.” He tweeted stuff like this, saying, “MAGA hats are like white hoods except stupider because you see exactly who is wearing them.” Now he’s taken down some of those tweets, and there are reports the chef is getting threats. What’s right here? What’s wrong? What matters? Let’s bring in D-Lemon, how do you see it?
DON LEMON: I think people should be able to wear whatever they want, right? I don’t like banning. I don’t like boycotting. I don’t like people getting fired for what’s just making honest mistakes. But I do say your clothing tells a story, and if you’ve put certain symbols in your home or in front of your house, things tell stories, and you should be aware of the entire story they tell, not just the little part of it that you want to be told. But I don’t like the idea of banning someone for wearing a hat, but that hat, as we have said, it’s no secret, I told you about how I feel and many people perceive that hat.
CUOMO: Right. So, you have the legality and then–
LEMON: It’s legal, right? You’re the attorney.
CUOMO: You can refuse service. You know, no shirt, no shoes, no service. On that, you’d have a counter First Amendment argument. You’re chilling my rights. It’s a private place. Well, how is this any different than the baker with the cake? Well, that was about refusing service to a group of people that should be a protected class. And, unless you argue that Trump supporters should be a protected class, I don’t think you have much of an argument on that.
…
Here’s my problem on this issue. Ordinarily, I’d go down the line, look, “be bigger than that.” But I don’t want to fold to the trap of underselling the significance of the trigger of the expression to people. I think the more appropriate analogy to say is if people were wearing shirts that said, “I hate black people,” would he be okay to say, “Don’t come into my place with that?” And I think most people would be like, “yeah.”
LEMON: Yeah.
CUOMO: That’s how people like him see the MAGA hat, so does that make it okay? I think that’s the right question.
On Friday’s Fox & Friends, Kurt Knutsson gushed over Microsoft’s NewsGuard blacklist as “fair” and a “good idea.”
Knutsson said:
This is a filter. So Microsoft has decided, in their latest mobile browser called Edge, that they’re going to make this as part of the browser that you can just simply see a badge. … What it does is it comes in red if it’s “unreliable,” and it comes in green if it’s “reliable” or trustworthy sources.
…
The [browser] add-on is from NewsGuard Tech and its former journalists … that run it. There are actually human beings behind it, and it’s actually a good idea. When I looked pretty closely at it, it’s pretty fair. They’re giving some criticism to the left, to the right–pretty right down the middle, and they’re calling it like it is.
Watch the full segment here at the 36-minute mark.
Knutsson’s only concern is if Silicon Valley, is if Facebook grabs control of NewsGuard, but as is, with establishment types running the blacklist, he thinks it’s pretty freakin’ awesome.
Well, of course, the backstabbers at Fox News love this blacklist. Why wouldn’t they? 1) Fox News is not blacklisted and 2) Fox News’s competition at Breitbart News and other right-leaning sites are blacklisted.
And so, what we have here from Fox News is a perfect example of “I’ve got mine” or “I’m going to appease the alligator, hoping he eats me last.”
Question…
What is Fox News going to do when Microsoft and NewsGuard add Fox News to this blacklist?
Seriously, what is Fox going to do now that it is on record gushing over just how “fair” and “down the middle” NewsGuard is? In brief, what is Fox News going to say for itself when Fox is blacklisted just in time for the 2020 presidential election, which is probably what’s going to happen?
Fox News has no principles.
This is a news outlet that will rage against Silicon Valley when Silicon Valley harms Fox News.
But if a Microsoft (which I believe is part of Silicon Valley, Kurt) launches a blacklisting tool and Fox News is not blacklisted, well, then, Hell, yeah, this thing is awesome! And it hurts our competition and it might send more advertisers our way and since we have no principles, we love this thing, Hoss, and so should you!
Fox News is also misleading its viewers into believing Microsoft’s NewsGuard is “fair” and “straight down the middle” because, as Breitbart News reported, NewsGuard is blacklisting Breitbart News only for the sin of reporting stories the establishment does not want reported.
In its lengthy critique of Breitbart News, NewsGuard did not list one story — not one — that Breitbart got wrong. All the blacklisters do is whine about our opinion pieces (which are clearly marked opinion) and crybaby over our accurate reporting on things NewsGuard does not want the public to know. It is all laid out right here.
Meanwhile…
While NewsGuard is blacklisting Breitbart News for telling the truth, this very same NewsGuard is marking as “credible” proven hoaxes and news so fake they have been retracted.
Behold NewGuard’s mighty green checkmark informing readers that first lady Melania Trump was an illegal alien, the Russians hacked Vermont’s electric grid, and so on and so forth…
Microsoft’s NewsGuard is nothing less than a hoax site with two functions: 1) As you can see in the Google search screenshot above, NewsGuard is marking as “credible” the grossest lies about President Trump, so this is all about misleading voters in 2020. 2) NewsGuard wants to sucker advertisers into believing it is credible as a means to starve publications like Breitbart News that dare to report (accurately) stories the establishment does not want reported.
No decent American is okay with any kind of central authority backed by a multinational corporation like Microsoft abusing its power to publish blacklists.
But if you watch the video above, you will see the pathetic suck-up that is Fox News lapping up every treat the establishment throws its way while selling out the rest of us…
Nancy says talk to the hand. She does not give a damn about Americans. JOIN THE VIDEO PLATFORM NOW: commonsensenation.net/videos/
1:51
WASHINGTON, DC — Angel families, American victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, marched on Capitol Hill and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office Tuesday, along with legislators and Women for Trump.
The Angel families chanted “build the wall” in Pelosi’s office:
Americans who have lost loved ones at the hands of illegal aliens and because of open borders gathered on Capitol Hill Tuesday urging Congress to fund a wall along the U.S. southern border for border security.
Watch – Angel Moms: Pelosi ‘Won’t Take Meetings with Family Of People Who Have Died’
Reps. Mo Brooks, Louie Gohmert, Matt Gaetz were among the several legislators gathered with the Angel families and Women for Trump in front of the U.S. Capitol Building, as they put faces to the statistics of Americans killed or injured due to illegal aliens and the drugs that flow in the U.S. at the southern border. Among them were D.J. and Wendy Corcoran and their daughter Avery, Sabine Durden, Maureen Laquerre, Maureen Maloney, Mary Ann Mendoza, Kent Terry, and Susan Stevens, who have each lost a loved one. Former Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Tom Homan also accompanied the group.
Avery Corcoran who lost her brother at the hands of an illegal alien (Credit: Michelle Moons/Breitbart News)
Angel mom Sabine Durden tells the story of the son she lost because of illegal immigration (Credit: Michelle Moons/Breitbart News)
After telling their stories and describing the dangers of a porous border, the group took to congressional offices and the Office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The partial federal government shutdown has become the longest in history as Democrats refuse to negotiate with President Donald Trump to provide funding for a southern border wall and border security that would allow for a bill to reopen the government.
