So we’ve all been talking a lot about the investigation into Hunter Biden and how the mainstream media seems to have finally caught up to the fact that yes, it’s real and it’s Russian disinformation as some tried to claim before the election.
Now that they think Joe Biden won, they’re free to just say “oh, well, here’s this thing.”
Never mind that they consciously suppressed it from the American people and completely failed in their supposed job prior to the election.
We saw a lot of conservatives chastising the media today for what they did.
But I wanted to talk about another group.
We expect the Democrats to cover for Biden. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) told CNN it was a “smear” straight from the Kremlin. CNN’s Jeff Zucker said in his morning conference call to impress upon people this stuff about Hunter was just more “Russian disinformation.” A lot of mainstream media has become little more than Democratic operatives at this point.
There’s a group that we don’t expect and for sure shouldn’t be playing this game and that’s the intelligence community.
But they have and they did in this instance as well.
There were 50 former senior intelligence officers who signed a letter saying that Hunter Biden’s emails had all the signs of a Russian disinformation campaign……
Larry Elder travels through some highly unusual outcomes of the election. The newest member of the chorus is an article from Patrick Basham:
Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
The other articles that are a must read are these:
5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST);
Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR).
I included the excerpt of Larry O’Connor discussing just how many ballots were adjudicated of the absentee ballots — at the time of the audio 113,130 ballots were counted, and 106,000 were adjudicated. The percentage of guessing voter intent was 93.6% – wow. Here is the video:
In other words, a voter review panel interprets voter intent… at a 94% rate? This is illegal, and what’s worse, is that the re is no way to check these changes.
Also, watch Dr. Coomer explain how easy it is to change votes using Dominion systems “adjudication” part:
…The report authors said they “observed an error rate of 68.05%” with ballot counts — a “significant and fatal error in security and election integrity” that far surpasses the “allowable election error rate” of 0.0008%, or one-in-250,000 ballots, that’s been established by the Federal Election Commission.
What’s interesting, too, is that state and county officials didn’t want to release information on Antrim County’s voting equipment for analysts’ review.
A judge had to order its release.
From the Detroit Free Press: “Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th Circuit Court had ordered ‘forensic imaging’ of the Dominion Voting Systems voting tabulators and related software after Antrim County resident William Bailey filed a lawsuit that challenged the integrity of the election equipment, citing errors in how the county initially reported its unofficial results.”
Come on, now. Why the need to go to court to obtain access to data and information that should already be transparent and public?…
EPOCH TIMES lays on the Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson by noting attorney Matthew DePerno saying she lied:
An attorney in a Michigan election case on Friday said that an infamous vote flip happened because of a computer program, not human error.
“Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said it happened by human error. We discovered that’s not true, that’s a lie. It didn’t happen by human error. It happened by a computer program called Dominion Voting System[s],” Matthew DePerno said on Newsmax.
DePerno is representing plaintiff William Bailey in a lawsuit against Antrim County. Bailey noted that the county initially reported Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden winning the county by more than 2,000 votes over President Donald Trump, but later changed the results to show Trump received nearly 4,000 more votes than Biden.
Officials claimed what happened was due to a human error, after initially suggesting it was in part because of a software issue.
DePerno said that through the lawsuit, his team was able to get access to the Dominion Voting Systems program. They went earlier this month and retrieved 16 thumb drives and 16 data cards, as well as the forensic image of the actual tabulation machine in the Antrim County clerk office.
“My team has been running analysis through that forensic image since Sunday,” he said…..
THE GELLER REPORT also notes that prior to the judges order going through, that “Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson [tried] to block the results of a forensic audit of Dominion machines in Antrim County, where thousands of votes for President Trump were flipped to Joe Biden.”
Hmmm, I wonder why? [ / sarcasm ]
Then John Solomon comes on the show (at the 3:27 mark) to discuss a Biden tainted foreign policy as well as other stories.
TUCKER
Tucker Carlson segment on a video deleted from Chinese social media of a professor saying that China “has people at the top of America’s core inner circle of power & influence.” pic.twitter.com/h3Ygy6UlHk
My wife said “Santa just went on the naughty list,” and that “he is wearing the wrong suit, he should be wearing a Grinch suit.” This is by way of ACE OF SPADES:
All this little patriot wanted for Christmas was a nerf gun, and this anti-gun mall Santa chose to push his anti-freedom beliefs on this little boy and made him cry.
(Eye Still On The Ball) Congressional Oversight in the Face of Executive Branch and Media Suppression: The Case Study of Crossfire Hurricane. Two people I respect greatly:
(Posted April 2014, Updated December 2017 and Today)
This comes via THE BLAZE, and is merely a confirmation of what many fair minded people already know, these are some quotes from Sharyl Attkisson during an interview on CNN. I think that CNN was a bit late to the party, maybe, feeling the hit to their ratings for not doing what Fox had already done with Miss Attkisson, that is, interview her:
Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.
[….]
“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”
[….]
As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”
Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”
“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.
“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”
THE BLAZE continues the story with the video interview:
UPDATED WITH CURRENT GRAPHS (12-6-2020)
This brings us back to some older news, but refreshing it in our minds helps us remember the uphill battle we face. Lets compare the first 100-days of each of our recent presidents. And as you will see, the media was most fair (down the middle, so-to-speak) with Clinton. But as the Left gets more entrenched due to brainwashing at the university, you see a slide to one end:
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.HOT AIR mentioned the Pew Poll a while back, noting: “In their 100-day look released last week, Pew notes that Obama got twice as much good press as Bush and 50% more than Clinton.” They continue by quoting Pew:
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.
[….]
Pew also notes that the types of coverage Obama receives seems designed to cast a halo on him. Unlike Bush (22%) and Clinton (26%), almost half of all news stories on Obama (44%) focus on his personal and leadership qualities. Those are the kinds of stories that usually take a soft focus, work in generalities, and put public figures in the best possible light.
Obama’s coverage differs in another key way. Much of the Obama coverage (31%) reports on what can only be called Obama’s campaign mode, in which Obama communicates directly with the American people. Only 8% of Bush’s coverage focused on those efforts. The media focused much more on Bush’s relationship with Congress and his legislative agenda.
In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics. They’re allowing Obama to manipulate them into campaign coverage rather than shine a light on his governance….
Well, Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year vet at CBS confirms to us what Bernie Goldberg years ago already did. That CBS (obviously not the only network) has sold its soul to the gods of progressivism. While Fox should remain center-right, they should always allow the other voice an opportunity to speak. Scott Whitlock at NEWSBUSTERS, for instance, noted that “as of April 3, 2014, it’s been 140 days since the once-vaunted Nightline covered ObamaCare or any of the problems associated with it. Instead, the ABC News program has mostly avoided hard news, focusing on tabloid-heavy topics such as a city in Brazil that has become known as the “model factory.” So it isn’t just WHAT you report as it is what you choose to ignore that affects the public’s perception. Sad.
…with GATEWAY PUNDIT’S erudite [not always mind you] fishing into what was just revealed (that I missed):
What has not been widely known until today was the Democratic Party front group’s role in actually producing the news.
Attkisson: “Media Matters, as my understanding, is a far left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent watchdog group. And yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories, and at some point…”
After Sunday’s broadcast, CNN posted a follow-up story that included a response from Media Matters. The response does not mention previous collaborations with Attkisson and CBS News in producing news reports for the network.
“We also sought comment from Media Matters; Attkisson said she thought it was possible that the liberal media monitoring group had been paid to discredit her. Media Matters responded:
‘Sharyl Attkisson is continuing a pattern of evidence-free speculation that started at the end of her tenure at CBS. We have never taken contributions to target her or any other reporter. Our decision to post any research on Attkisson is based only on her shoddy reporting’.”
There was no mention of Media Matters working with Attkisson to produce news reports for CBS News in the recent hit piece by David Brock’s Senior Fellow attack poodle Eric Boehlert posted at Media Matters on April 17th with the laughably dishonest headline (if Attkisson is to be believed):
CBS News should disclose which reports by the network were done in collaboration with the Democratic Party front group Media Matters. Attkisson should also disclose on which stories she collaborated with Media Matters.
Burden of Proof Is on Election Officials not on the Trump Team; Republican Leadership Doesn’t Matter, People’s Will Matter: Brian T. Kennedy (he President of the American Strategy Group, Chairman of the Committee on the Present Danger: China, and a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute)
SHERMAN OAKS, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — The owner of a Sherman Oaks restaurant expressed her anger and frustration over Los Angeles County’s outdoor dining ban in a gut-wrenching video.
Angela Marsden, the owner of Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill, posted a video on social media after she saw production tents and tables set up in a parking lot just a few feet from the outdoor dining area she’s not allowed to use.
People involved in the television production were seen dining under the tents.
“Everything I own is being taken away from me and they set up a movie company right next to my outdoor patio,” Marsden says in the video.
In August of 2019, the New York Times published The 1619 Project. Its goal is to redefine the American experiment as rooted not in liberty but in slavery. In this video, Wilfred Reilly, Associate Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University, responds to The 1619 Project’s major claims.
