Overcoming Nadler’s Fascists Working Overtime

It Appears Most of the Media Need a Lesson on What Is Context (and the Truth)

by Jack Hellner  at  American Thinker:

The Attorney General is being castigated for purportedly providing inadequate “context” in his summary of the Mueller Report’s conclusions. Coming from our mainstream media who, in collusion with other Democrats, continuously lie to the public in their attempt to destroy President Trump and anyone who surrounds him, this is ridiculous. They devote themselves to creating a phony context – a deranged worldview in which Donald Trump is a traitor, Republicans are racists, and Trump supporters are primitives.

For over two years most of the media and other Democrats have spread the fake news to the public that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election from their chosen one despite never having any evidence that was true.

Now that their chosen cabal to run the witch hunt against Trump (the Mueller team of Clinton supporters) came up with nothing to support their claims, they have chosen to attack AG Barr. He has announced he is investigating the origins of the hoax investigation, panicking the Democrats. The initial excuse used by House Democrats for attacking the AG is ludicrous: telling the truth about Mueller’s conclusions. The whiny little infants think that Barr didn’t expose their outright hate of Trump in his truthful conclusions, so they complain that Barr didn’t display the full context. Obviously, facts are secondary to hate.

Now, most of the media, in collusion with other Democrats are out attacking Barr They certainly can’t allow him to investigate all the clear criminal activity and obstruction of justice by Clapper, Brennan, Hillary, Obama and bureaucrats at the Justice Department. The truth would be unhelpful in the 2020 election.

Senator Harris says Barr should resign because he came to his conclusions by reading the Mueller report. I would ask her if she read all the underlying evidence when she decided cases as a district attorney in California, or did she rely on reports from subordinates? Maybe Harris should be asked how the Mueller team and intelligence agencies came to the conclusion that Russia hacked DNC computers even though they never were allowed to examine the evidence.

Representative Nadler lied to the public when he says it is standard procedure for staff attorneys to have the opportunity to question AG Barr, but the media and Democrats support Nadler instead of Barr.

Democrats complained endlessly about not being able to see the more complete Mueller report, yet when Barr made it available to six of them, not one of them read it. It appears they like talking points more than doing actual research.

Just 2 lawmakers have seen less-redacted Mueller report

On the eve of Attorney General William Barr’s testimony on a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, only two lawmakers have set eyes on secret information that Barr withheld from public view.

Barr offered access to a less-redacted version of the report to just 12 members of Congress — six Democrats and six Republicans. But as of Tuesday afternoon, only Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opted to view it. A third, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he planned to review the report later Tuesday.

Obama’s AG’s repeatedly lied to Congress and Democrats didn’t clamor for them to resign, but they demand Barr resign because he didn’t get the full context of peoples thoughts in his summary?

Eric Holder’s Long History Of Lying To Congress 

Before he lied to Congress while under oath about what he knew about targeting reporters, he lied about Fast and Furious. As early as the New Black Panthers case, Eric Holder had a problem with the truth

That the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on Department of Justice (DOJ) surveillance of reporters comes as no surprise. People have forgotten about the New Black Panther case, perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members in military garb were videotaped intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.

The slam-dunk prosecution of these thugs was dropped by Holder’s Justice Department. When asked why, Holder, on March 1, 2011, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.”

Holder lied, for the decisions were made by political appointees. J. Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.

Eric Holder: ‘I’m still the president’s wingman’

Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off a question Thursday about when he might leave the administration. Instead, the top lawman professed his allegiance to President Barack Obama.

“I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done.  I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy.

If you want to see contemptible, an unqualified person taking things out of context, look at Joe Biden. Biden intentionally lied about Trump’s comments at Charlottesville to gin up racial hate. Then he goes around saying he is very proud of his and Obama’s eight years because there wasn’t even a hint of scandal. The other day he scoffed at the idea that China is a threat to us.

That is similar to Obama laughing at Romney when he said truthfully that Russia was dangerous.

Either Biden is losing his marbles due to age, has always been ignorant, or is willfully blind, especially to all the scandals during his eight years with Obama.

But, of course, most of the media cheers on Slow Joe by saying what a great candidate he is. They will report as accurately on him as they have on Obama and Hillary.

‘China is going to eat our lunch?’: Joe Biden dismisses Beijing as threat to US

Former vice-president Joe Biden on Wednesday dismissed the notion the United States should be worried about China as a geopolitical competitor, prompting criticism from some congressional Republicans who argued that Biden is underestimating the world’s second-largest economy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/it_appears_most_of_the_media_need_a_lesson_on_what_is_context_and_the_truth.html

The Unhappy Snake in the Grass, Slippery Boa Mueller Moans

MUELLER MOANS, MEDIA MISLEADS

by Paul Mirengoff  at  PowerLine:

Yesterday, I noted that mainstream media coverage of William Barr’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee omitted an important piece of information — Barr tried to address the concern of Robert Mueller that some combination of Barr’s four-page memo and media reporting about it was “confusing” the American public. Barr responded with a statement designed to clarify the situation. The media did not report this fact even though it figured prominently in Barr’s testimony.

In addition, the media either did not report or barely mentioned three other important facts to which Barr testified. Marc Thiessen highlights two of them in this op-ed for the Washington Post.

First, before issuing his four-page summary of Mueller’s two major conclusions, Barr gave the special counsel a chance to see the document and to offer comments and proposed edits. Mueller declined.

One rarely sees mention of this in mainstream media reporting, for an obvious reason — it makes Barr look good and Mueller look bad. It casts Mueller’s after-the-fact whining, or that of his “snitty” staff, in an unfavorable light.

Second, Barr, far from being uncooperative with Congress or trying to hide the ball, overrode normal Justice Department procedures and released the full Mueller report to the public with only minor redactions. Moreover, Congress has access to a version of the report that contains even less redacted material.

Barr stressed this point in his opening statement, but I don’t recall seeing it mentioned in mainstream media reporting. Again, the reason is obvious — it makes Barr look good and undercuts the furious attempts of Democrats to demonize him.

Finally, the media is covering for Mueller at Barr’s expense in another way. Barr testified that the Department of Justice, anticipating that redactions to the Mueller report would be necessary as a matter of law, encouraged Mueller’s team to identify portions of its report that would need to be redacted.

By doing so before submitting the report to the DOJ, Mueller would significantly reduce the time required before his report could be released to the public and to Congress. Barr testified that, shortly after becoming Attorney General, he personally made this point to Mueller.

But when Mueller submitted his report, it did not identify redactions. This meant that Barr’s team had to start the redaction project from scratch. As a result, the report could not be released as soon as Barr had hoped.

Had Mueller cooperated with redactions at the front end, Congress and the public would have heard directly from him much sooner. Indeed, he might not even have had to ask Barr, in that now famous letter, to issue multi-page summaries of his findings. The entire report might have been ready, or nearly ready, for release by then.

Thus, Mueller dropped the ball twice: first by not flagging redactions and second by not reviewing Barr’s four-page memo before it was released. If there is public confusion about the report (other than that now being generated by desperate Democrats) due to Barr’s memo and the delay in releasing the actual report, Mueller is partly to blame.

Fortunately for him, the mainstream media acts as his shield.

 

President Trump’s TRUE Claims About Today’s America Baby Killings

Did President Trump Make False Claims About Infanticide?

As expected, pundits on the left are in an uproar at the president’s claims that a doctor conspires with parents as to whether to execute their newborn baby. In Trump’s words(spoken at a recent rally in Green Bay), “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

The Media Responds, Calling Trump’s Scenario a Lie

In response, Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith tweeted, “President Trump keeps telling the same lie about abortion doctors murdering healthy fetuses after delivery. This doesn’t happen. Yet he said it again last night. This is precisely the kind of hysteria that inspires people who murder doctors and patients.”

Julia Pulver, a former neonatal nurse, said this: “When a baby dies in the hospital, it is a very sad thing but it is not something that is ever chosen. It is a horrible situation thrust upon parents who want their baby, who have prepared for the baby, who have framed sonograms sitting on their desks.”

According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, “What Trump asserted, for the second time, is false, illegal, and simply not happening — nor would it happen.” She claimed that, “The president “not only straight-up lied but also vilified women, families, and doctors facing situations every single one of us prays we never encounter.”

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

And Huffington Post adds this: “The recent focus on the alleged horrors of late-term abortions is especially fact-free. Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and experts say these involve pregnancies that endanger the mother (and by extension the baby) or severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life.”

Addressing Their Claims: Northam Admitted it First

Let’s address these claims one at a time.

First, President Trump said nothing about the baby being healthy (contra the tweet of Smith). Instead, he spoke about the very real situation in which a baby survives an abortion (or, presumably, is born with a life-threatening defect) and is allowed to die. That’s why Congress keeps trying to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

In its current form, the bill reads, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

This is a real bill designed to address real, life and death situations.

Not only so, but it was Virginia governor Ralph Northam who provided Trump with his main talking points about infanticide.

There’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As Northam infamously said during a radio interview, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Yet the left rails on Trump for calling this out rather than on Northam for saying it.

The Horrors of Killing and Abandoning Abortion Survivors are Real

To repeat: These things are really happening.

An official government document dated September 23, 2016, notes:

In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. This law recognized a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, as a legal person under the laws of the United States. The legal definition of live birth includes any sign of life, such as breath, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed. Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself. It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections for born-alive children after attempted abortions. That is why Congress must pass the proposed legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504/S. 2066).

Trump is not lying. These things are happening. They may happen just as he described (with the baby being wrapped in a blanket) or they may not (perhaps the baby is left naked and crying on a table). But they are happening, nonetheless.

Yet, to repeat, there’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As noted by Tony Perkins, “Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimony, grand jury reports, survivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!”

Addressing Something Terribly Evil

Second, what point is made by saying, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks”? What if the sentence read, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after birth”? Would that lessen the severity of the crime? We only kill a tiny percentage of babies once they’re born!

Let’s also put this in real-life numbers.

According to a just-released CDC report, in New York City in 2015, “the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicide victims was 352.”

Shall we celebrate the fact that this (allegedly) represents “only” 1.3 percent of abortions?

These, in short, are the facts: States like New York have passed laws allowing for abortions right up to the time of delivery. Infanticide is taking place. And in countries like the Netherlands, “650 babies a year [are] euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease.”

In light of all this, I’m glad that President Trump continues to speak up. He is addressing something terribly evil, and it behooves every person of conscience to stand with him in standing for the rights of “the least of these.”

 

Did President Trump Make False Claims About Infanticide?