The DOJ Cannot Indict a Sitting President

Mark Levin is the master at this stuff. He takes his legal knowledge to his radio show:

On his Monday radio program, Levin cited a DOJ memorandum from 2000 affirming the department’s position in 1973 that the Constitution does not allow the president to be criminally indicted. In 1973, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum stating that indictment proceedings would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency,” as criminal proceedings would severely handicap the president from performing his “onerous” and “unique” duties under the Constitution, thereby short-circuiting the entire executive branch.

“A criminal proceeding against the president is in some respects necessarily political in a way that criminal proceedings against other civil officers would not be,” Levin read from the memorandum. “In this respect, it would be incongruous for a jury of only 12 to undertake the unavoidably political task of rendering judgment in a criminal proceeding against a sitting president.”

Levin explained that the memorandum is arguing that it is incredibly difficult for 12 people on a jury and a judge to leave politics out of a verdict on a legal matter involving the president.

(DAILY WIRE)

Soon after, Alan Dershowitz got the cue and he explained on FOX (http://tinyurl.com/y72l2ozl):

✦ “The Justice Department has twice ruled in a long extensive memo, which I just read this morning, for the second or third time, stating clearly that the president cannot be indicted, prosecuted, and tried while serving in office. The only mechanism the Constitution provides is that he could be impeached, and once impeached and removed from office, he can then be charged with a criminal trial. But a sitting president cannot — according to the Justice Department, be tried.” ~ Dershowitz (BREITBART)

It looks as though the Democrats are stuck in the mud a bit. But they will continue to hurl mud… it’s what they do:

 

Is Special Prosecutor Mueller Showing His Bias?

I was asked the following by a friend:

  • If Trump fires Mueller, would you still support Trump? It’s not a trick question ;-)

I responded with this:

  • I support Trump till he is out of office. Like I supported Dubya. I think it would be a bad decision personally, but Gingrich makes some good points here:

I then linked to an article that notes this about some of Mueller’s choices for his team:

Justice Department Deputy Solicitor General MICHAEL DREEBEN donated in 2008 to a political action committee for then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as well as a PAC for Hillary Clinton in 2006. Jeannie Rhee, who previously served as a deputy assistant attorney general and now works as a partner in the investigations practice at WilmerHale, donated to the Democratic National Committee as well as campaign PACs Obama in 2008 and 2011, and Clinton’s campaign in 2015 and 2016.

My friend then humorously said this:

  • How about if he shot somebody on 5th Ave?

To which I asked:

  • Lol. No. I just have a funny feeling that Comey leaked on purpose to get a guy to investigate (his words), and it happens to be his golfing partner who then hires persons closely allied with the DNC and Obama/Hillary.

I then linked to this article mentioning another couple hires by Mueller:

One of the hires, JEANNIE RHEE, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity. Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. Rhee also has contributed to a trio of Democratic senators: Mark Udall of New Mexico, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

JAMES QUARLES, who worked on the Watergate investigation as a young prosecutor, has an even longer history of supporting Democratic politicians. He gave $1,300 to Obama in 2007 and $2,300 in 2008. He also gave $2,700 to Clinton last year. He has supported a number of other Democratic candidates, including Van Hollen, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), former Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), former Vice President Al Gore, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, former Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Colorado congressional candidate Gail Schwartz. In addition, Quarles gave money to former Sen. John Walsh (D-Mont.) and three current Democratic senators — Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Robert Menendez of New Jersey. He chipped in $300 to the DNC Services Corp. $300 in 2012. Quarles did donate to a couple of GOP politicians — $250 to then-Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2006 and $2,500 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) in 2015.

ANDREW WEISSMANN, a former Justice Department lawyer who now is at Jenner & Block, contributed $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,000 to the DNC Services Corp. in 2006. Weissmann served as chief of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section and worked on the Enron fraud case.

I then asked: “That doesn’t raise any flags with you?” Of course it doesn’t. That is because he is not a Republican with the interests of protecting conservatism.

He also thinks Comey has “an incredible reputation for integrity.” WRONG again… he broke the law, in the least

  • Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.” ~Professor Turley

Here is a devastating tour of the case against Comey:

The MSM and #NeverTrumpers Join Forces in “Wooden” Literalism

A friend linked to a WASHINGTON POST article after I posted the above on my Facebook with this statement:

  • “Trump quoted the mayor COMPLETELY out of context. Read this:”

(I – RPT – post a section from his link for clarity):

…But then he decided to slam the mayor of the city attacked, who had calmly warned his fellow Londoners: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. There’s no reason to be alarmed.” Trump took the second part out of context and responded viciously, “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” (The mayor, of course, was telling them not to be alarmed by the heightened police presence.) Trump was not done, however, inanely tweeting, “Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!”…

(He also linked to FOX NEWS’ story on it.) HOTAIR deconstructs Mayor Khan better:

Sadiq Khan, the mayor, didn’t say there’s no reason to be alarmed about terrorism. What he said: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed — one of the things the police and all of us need to do is make sure we’re as safe as we possibly can be.” In other words, there’s no reason to be alarmed that another attack is imminent. The police will be out in the streets as a precautionary measure, not because there’s intelligence suggesting more bombs are about to go off.

I will now post our conversation to help the conservative leave the “woodeness” of the Left, whom complains about the Right not considering grey areas of life — but what Prager rightly notes the “black n white” truly exists on the Left (and so, in the media). BTW, this is a fellow compatriot. These are honest and cordial disagreements between us GOP’ers. I consider this an in-house debate about Trump, like the age of the earth or other theological matters. I am not posting this here to belittle my friend but merely to note the closeness of the #NeverTrumpers to the MSM’s understanding of the view they have of all Republicans since Nixon. They [the #NeverTrumpers] are just now lining up with that same rhetoric from the Left because of their dislike for Trump. You see, I am not an analyse… I am a conservative. I see the larger fight for the soul of America as between Left and Right. I want the right to win in politics… and I do so by defending Republicans from the dopiness of the Media [Left].

These two totally variant views on reality are at their core, two completely different worldviews/philosophies. My job as a polemicist is to make sure we win in arguments where truth is concerned and the ethos of our Founding is defended in some way.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome that infects the #NeverTrumpers is hindering their view that they are siding with the MSM in their false view and inability to pick up what Trump was laying down… specifically in that Tweet. I have to admit as someone who is imperfect, I bet I practiced some of this with Obama. But these people are not seeing the forest beyond a few trees…

…to wit I hope my responses shed a bit of light on this:

ME –

So a mayor who has ignored terrorism, in fact tripling since he’s been mayor, himself having ties to extremism, a police force that ran away from the attackers, and a suspect who master mined the attacks who was warned of 2-years ago, and the populace is not suppose to be alarmed? Please. And the WaPo has never taken Trump (or Rubio) out of context? Please.

J.G. –

I didn’t suggest that WaPo has never published a news article or an opinion piece in which the writer took Trump (or Rubio) out of context. When that occurs, I have no objection to anyone calling them out on it. Most of your posts on your blog do just that (and I think that is good). So, I find it ironic that suddenly, you are defensive when a similar standard is applied to something you posted. Be fair Sean.

[….]

The main point I was trying to make Sean, is that this particular post of yours was spreading a false narrative. Feel free to criticize politicians and others who are hesitant to take necessary and reasonable steps to keep citizens safe, but you can do that without helping Trump spread more falsehoods.

ME –

Trump had all that in mind when he Tweeted that. Others may not know or follow this mayor’s many previous statements about Trump and his connections to jihadists, but, but I have. What is a false narrative from the media is that the people of London are not effed, and mean ol Trump is smearing a good guy. Leftists like to pardon Islamists (like the mayor), lift up severed heads as “art,” because they have similar worldviews (I have an entire chapter from Melanie here on this). Her book Londanistan should be the topic, not something Trump says [laid down] that you or the press cannot pick up.

[….]

I feel like I am responding to an atheist. Let me explain. When I talk to persons who challenge the Bible (and take note Protestants look at Scriptural integrity differently that Catholics), they will bring up points from the O.T. as literal, without applying genres (like poetry, war texts, history, wisdom literature, prophecy, and the like), or subcategories such as hyperbole.

So I merely bring up that using the way the skeptic is using the Bible would be the same as reading Exodus 15:8 and positing that God has a BIG nose, or reading Psalm 91:4 and saying God is a giant chicken.

Similarly, WaPo is taking the rhetoric of Trump as woodenly literal without keeping in mind the following:

  • a jihadist sympathizing mayor, police running away, 2-year old warnings unheaded, and now military police in pubs [that is hyperbole in case you are not getting it]… etc.

Are you now taking Trump’s Tweet as literally using the phrase of the London mayor without reference to any deeper meaning J.G.?

J.G. –

Many reasonable people are interpreting many of the things that Trump says as asinine, ignorant, immature, and unbecoming of a POTUS. He better work on improving his communication skills if we’re all misunderstanding him. I’m not talking about left-wing nutcases misunderstanding him. I’m talking about lifelong conservatives (like me) and mainstream moderates misunderstanding him. Please don’t blame the media. The media doesn’t write his Tweets or speak for him when he’s in front of the camera.

ME –

If he was as eloquent as Obama was it would make not a single iota of difference in the stories at WaPo.

Reagan was an excellent communicator, as was Ford, Nixon, etc. But ALL were bumbling idiot according to the press.

J.G. –

Sean Giordano, you don’t get it. There is a huge difference between how conservatives and moderates viewed Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. and how they view Trump both in terms of competence and ability to communicate effectively. I’m not talking about the Washington Post. I’m talking about Americans across the whole country. Trump is perceived as a bafoon by the vast majority of Americans, not just journalists.

ME –

No, trump has done waay more conservative things that any of those before him in the same time.

So I separate Obama’s excellent rhetoric from his horrible policy. LIKEWISE, I separate Trump’s horrible rhetoric from his excellent policy.

He is a buffoon in public. So? So was Mozart, Beethoven, Immanuel Kant, Lewis Carroll, and others. And?

So, Trump is not a Rubio or a Bobby Jindal (my first choice) or a Ted Cruz (my second choice).

Trump still has done more in his first days than I think any of them could have (including winning the rust belt, and thus winning).

…to be continued… maybe?

Here is JIHAD WATCH’S take on the matter:

President Trump has taken London Mayor Sadiq Khan to task for his grossly insensitive statement about the London jihadist attack:

  • “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack,” the president wrote on his personal Twitter account, “and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’

Only a “leader” with either an unsound mind or an unsavory agenda could utter such bizarre words following a gruesome jihad rampage (within two weeks of the one Manchester) that began with the mowing down of innocent civilians and continued with a 12-inch blade “knife frenzy.” All the while, the jihadis shouted “this is for Allah.”

Khan’s words start to look more sinister than obtuse when one considers his own jihadist connections. He was reported by the UK’s Spectator to have known links to “extremists”:

Some of these associations date back to his time as a director of Liberty and a human rights lawyer – trying to get the UK to lift its ban on the American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described Jews as ‘blood-suckers’ and called Hitler ‘a very great man, and speaking at the same conference as Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed Islamist organisation that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.

It doesn’t stop there:

in 2004 he appeared on a platform with five Islamic extremists at a conference in London organised by Al-Aqsa, a group that has published works by the notorious Holocaust denier Paul Eisen….In the same year, Khan was the chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee and was involved in defending the Muslim scholar Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

Qaradawi is no “moderate.” As reported by Jihad Watch in February:

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

In September, Khan stated that it was necessary for Westerners to be careful not to insult Muslims and to affirm that Muslims can hold Western values, otherwise they would join jihad groups. In other words, Khan was warning non-Muslims to beware of insulting Muslims, otherwise they would kill you.

Also, it did not matter that jihad attacks in Britain tripled in five years: Khan boasted in March that he planned on bringing in 1,500,000 more migrants….

(read it all)

Michael Walsh, Author Of “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace”

Dennis Prager interviews Michael Walsh who writes for the NEW YORK POST as well as PJ MEDIA. Michael is on for his book being released in paperback, “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace: The Cult of Critical Theory and the Subversion of the West.”  The conversation was interesting, I even enjoyed the “conductor talk,” but alas, I am keeping this upload directed at the political. A great conversation and a humbling of myself who stayed anti-Trump till the last month-and-a-half before the election. The article mentioned by these two, “The Flight 93 Election,” can be found at CLAREMONT INSTITUTE … near the end they discussed the previous hour about cultural appropriation, that segment can be found HERE.

I am a new fan of Michael’s and look forward to reading his work. Follow him on TWITTER.

Rep. Steve Scalise Discusses Trump’s Budget (Plus: Maddow Challenge)

  • “President Trump has passed more legislation in his first 100 days than any president since Harry Truman.” — Tom McClintock on Friday, April 28th, 2017 in a radio interview

Michael Medved interviews House of Representatives Majority Whip and representative for Louisiana’s 1st congressional district, Steve Scalise. Steve responds first to a statement by Rachel Maddow that the House Republicans haven’t done anything since they took office. Then the discussion focused on this administrations work to help the middle-class and lower class get work, leave the dependent lifestyle, and the like.

Food Stamp Mantra[s] from Democrats Rebutted

Michael Medved responds to the food stamp issue that Democrats and the Left are bringing up. I take a clip from yesterday’s show and insert it into the middle of today’s show to give the listener some ammunition when these banal arguments come up. At the 5:17 mark, the caller mentions taxes for the millionaires as part of his argument. Medved Responds well to this challenge at the… and at the 6:24 mark you hear the caller respond with a bumper sticker jingle. In other words, talking about facts matters little to these people, but at least you will be able to influence those around you eavesdropping in on the conversation.

I posted this video on LIVELEAK, and a comment got me “clicking around” the internet to test what the person said. Here is the comment:

For every $1 spent on food stamps there’s a $1.80 stimulative effect to the economy. The poor person spends the funds at the grocery store, which allows the store to employ more people, the store spends the funds to buy more food which helps farmers and food producers. On the other hand, tax cuts for the wealthy have a negative effect on the economy, it just doesn’t trickle down enough so it drains economic growth. Plus it helps feed poor people that can’t afford to eat. — Warren H.

First, it should be noted that this idea was championed mainly by Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi, a hard-core Keynesian. However, it should be noted that unfortunately “for Zandi, there has never been any empirical evidence of the Keynesian multiplier.  Government doesn’t take one dollar and turn it into more by spending it.  God doesn’t live in the White House, no matter how much Paul Krugman prays.” (AMERICAN THINKER)

HERITAGE FOUNDATION puts it like this:

…The Keynesian argument also assumes that consumption spending adds to immediate economic growth while savings do not. By this reasoning, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and low-income tax rebates are among the most effective stimulus policies because of their likelihood to be consumed rather than saved.

Taking this analysis to its logical extreme, Mark Zandi of Economy.com has boiled down the government’s influence on America’s broad and diverse $14 trillion economy into a simple menu of stimulus policy options, whereby Congress can decide how much economic growth it wants and then pull the appropriate levers. Zandi asserts that for each dollar of new government spending: temporary food stamps adds $1.73 to the economy, extended unemployment benefits adds $1.63, increased infrastructure spending adds $1.59, and aid to state and local governments adds $1.38. Jointly, these figures imply that, in a recession, a typical dollar in new deficit spending expands the economy by roughly $1.50. Over the past 40 years, this idea of government spending as stimulus has fallen out of favor among many economists. As this paper shows, it is contradicted both by empirical data and economic logic…

They then respond to the above:

The Evidence is In

Economic data contradict Keynesian stimulus theory. If deficits represented “new dollars” in the economy, the record $1.2 trillion in FY 2009 deficit spending that began in October 2008–well before the stimulus added $200 billion more–would have already overheated the economy. Yet despite the historic 7 percent increase in GDP deficit spending over the previous year, the economy shrank by 2.3 percent in FY 2009. To argue that deficits represent new money injected into the economy is to argue that the economy would have contracted by 9.3 percent without this “infusion” of added deficit spending (or even more, given the Keynesian multiplier effect that was supposed to further boost the impact). That is simply not plausible, and few if any economists have claimed otherwise.

And if the original $1.2 trillion in deficit spending failed to slow the economy’s slide, there was no reason to believe that adding $200 billion more in 2009 deficit spending from the stimulus bill would suddenly do the trick. Proponents of yet another stimulus should answer the following questions: (1) If nearly $1.4 trillion budget deficits are not enough stimulus, how much is enough? (2) If Keynesian stimulus repeatedly fails, why still rely on the theory?

This is no longer a theoretical exercise. The idea that increased deficit spending can cure recessions has been tested repeatedly, and it has failed repeatedly. The economic models that assert that every $1 of deficit spending grows the economy by $1.50 cannot explain why $1.4 trillion in deficit spending did not create a $2.1 trillion explosion of new economic activity.

(read it all)

CATO likewise notes that the numbers were fudged to provide exaggerated outcomes:

Food stamps are effective economic stimulus. Led by Mark Zandi and other Keynesian economists, food-stamp advocates have made wildly exaggerated claims about the program’s role in stimulating the economy. Zandi, for instance, claims that “extending food stamps is the most effective way to prime the economy’s pump.”

But aside from the fact that those economic models just as well predict an alien invasion would be a boon to the economy, there is little evidence to support the theory. Even the Agriculture Department’s own inspector general concluded that it was unable to determine whether the additional dollars in the stimulus’s food-stamp expansion were in any way effective in meeting the 2009 Recovery Act’s goals. Three of the four performance measures the program was supposed to use, the office found, “reflected outputs, such as the dollar amount of benefits issued and administrative costs expended” and did not provide any insight into outcomes.

On the other hand, we do know that a failure to get government spending under control will have long-term economic consequences. Food stamps are hardly the major cause of deficits and debt — that distinction lies with middle-class entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — but every little bit helps.

Valerie Jarrett and Nancy Pelosi said similar things:

  • JARRETT: Let’s face it: Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community. And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it’s good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well.
  • PELOSI: Economists agree that unemployment benefits remain one of the best ways to grow the economy in a very immediate way. It immediately injects demand into our markets and increases employment. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, the economy grows by, according to one estimate, $1.52; by others, $2. So somewhere in that range, but much more than is spent on it…. We have a responsibility to the American people. These are people who have played by the rules, have lost their job through no fault of their own, and need these benefits in order to survive. So we must extend this insurance before the end of the year and we must extend it for at least a year. And I’d like to see that as we go forward before this year ends. Hopefully it could be part of a budget, but it doesn’t have to be part of a budget. It could be in its own vehicle as it goes forward, but it’s something we must consider.

Again, similar responses happened then as well:

Economists at the Heritage Foundation have written about this claim, explaining:

The theory behind extending UI [Unemployment Insurance] benefits as a stimulus assumes that unemployed workers will immediately spend any additional UI payments, instantly increasing consumption, boosting aggregate demand, and stimulating the economy.

This is not a new idea. Economists in the 1960s thought that unemployment insurance could function as an important automatic economic stabilizer. Empirical research in the 1970s demonstrated that this was not the case, and studies since then have concluded that unemployment insurance plays at best a small role in stabilizing the economy. Empirical research at the state level also finds that UI plays a negligible role in stimulating the economy.

Studies that have found that UI stimulates the economy effectively — such as studies by the Congressional Budget Office and economist Mark Zandi — rely on two faulty assumptions, thereby drawing a false conclusion:

They assume that unemployed workers spend every dollar of additional UI benefits almost immediately and that extending unemployment insurance does not affect workers’ behavior. In that case, every dollar spent on unemployment insurance adds a dollar to consumption without any direct effects on the labor market. Both assumptions are false.

Unemployment Insurance Prolongs Unemployment. One of the most thoroughly established results in labor economics is the effect of unemployment benefits on unemployed workers’ behavior. labor economists agree that extended unemployment benefits cause workers to remain unemployed longer than they otherwise would.

This occurs for obvious reasons: Workers respond to incentives. Unemployment benefits reduce the incentive and the pressure to find a new job by making it less costly to remain without work…..

Michael Medved Discusses Trump’s Budget Proposal

I like Medved’s take because he (unlike many other commentators) takes calls which are negative to his view. A good short article on Trump’s budget is over at POWERLINE talking about the projected GDP. The WASHINGTON TIMES notes that this budget is shocking!

President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal is shocking on two fronts, and both will have denizens of the Washington swamp tearing their hair out.

Backgrounding supporters on a Monday conference call, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney referred to the budget proposal as a “Taxpayer First Budget,” and said, “I imagined myself standing in front of a taxpayer asking him for his money.” Could Mulvaney justify asking any taxpayer to hand over money to pay for health services for disabled veterans, he asked? Yes, of course. Could he justify asking that taxpayer for money to pay for a program that takes college graduates and helps them get graduate degrees, a program that’s been documented to have a 6 percent success rate? No, he could not. Consequently, programs for disabled veterans get funding, and programs with a 6 percent success rate do not.

Shocking, eh?

[….]

But putting taxpayers first isn’t the only shocking thing about the proposed Trump budget.

OMB Director Mulvaney went on to explain a second shocking aspect: The proposed budget attacks waste in government by employing a simple test – if Congress has not authorized a program, it should not be funded. That is, if Congress itself doesn’t deem the program worthy enough of funding to take the time to authorize it, the program isn’t worth the money Congress is spending on it.

[….]

Putting taxpayers first and refusing to illegally spend money on unauthorized programs are shocks to the system. They’re also proof of the political axiom that elections have consequences – and even more proof, for anyone who needed it, that President Trump aims to end business as usual in Washington, and live up to his promise to drain the swamp.

For a more negative review of the budget, see NATIONAL REVIEW’S article by Kevin D. Williamson.

Media Bias Exemplified… AGAIN! (Plus: More CNN #fakenews)

FOX NEWS ends up being the most “Fair and Balanced,” as usual. Now, some of it may be explained away by this analogy: “The Lions [NFL] get bad press because they do poorely.” Okay, I cannot argue against nor defend Trump’s insane Tweets and foot-n-mouth disease. But many of the major networks and papers show their bias towards the issues thus:

  • …immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. (NEWSBUSTERS)

In a previous NEWSBUSTERS study, they pointed out the same biased media coverage (see graphic to the right).

I WILL INCLUDE some similar graphics I have collected over the years, at the end of this post.

Here is the

How negative was press coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

Accusations of bias aside, it’s simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump’s opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.

That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Ninety-three percent negative — that’s a lot by anybody’s standards. “CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study noted. “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity.”……

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

What is funny is CNN produced some #fakenews from the study — of course they did!


A Couple Older “Bias” Graphics


Articles of Impeachment (Nixon v. Trump)

Larry Elder covers the articles of impeachment for Nixon. Many pundits are saying that what Trump did is Nixon-like or worse, “the Sage” notes what Nixon would have been impeached for — he stepped down before that. Jonathan Turley, Leftist legal scholar and professor, notes that so far Trump’s actions don’t even come close. Enjoy!

Saudi Arabia – More Pro-American Than California?

…let’s not forget that we are dealing with a corrupt, degenerate, autocratic state where there is no free speech, where universities are run by fanatics who indoctrinate students with radical ideology; where street thugs aligned with the ruling party freely commit acts of violence against opposing views, and whose ruling elite routinely violates the basic rights of Christians and other minorities. Also, Saudi Arabia is pretty bad too.

(GAY PATRIOT “That Awkward Moment When Saudi Arabia Is More Pro-American Than California“)