Some Covid-Minded Facebook Debate (Plus, an RPT BONUS)

JUMP TO:

This is essentially part two of a previous post, and is really a commentary or a piecing together of conversation on Doc J’s Facebook. Here is the Original Post (OP) and where I decided to dive in – in the discussion strain.

As I said previously… I probably agree with Doc J on most things encompassing the worldview we hold. The Judeo-Christian framework of viewing nature, our belief in God, and the like. I recommend his books as they are well researched and written.

…all the being said… let’s continue…

This comment by TD G. caught my eye, and I want to preproduce it here as it signifies my position as well:

I’m taking a stand against a wicked govt, establishment, and world which I don’t trust is looking out for my best interests or being honest with me. You seem to be enamored with the nanny state and trust it like it’s your “Big Brother”.

They are using this virus and treatment to take control of the food industry (not that food is important), the medical industry (same), small businesses (same), the military (ditto), international travel, domestic flying, employment (not that having a means to provide for one’s family is as important as a virus with a 98-99% survival rate), health care, public assembly, free speech, buying groceries, education, etc.

Yet you continue pushing drugs like a guy on the street corner without consideration that the things I listed are far, FAR more dangerous and deadly than covid.

We’ll be as oppressed as the Red Chinese or USSR, but we won’t have as much covid! A 99% survival rate instead of 98!

This is still an issue with me — this next response by DOC J — and I will explain a bit more in this post as I go along than I did in the strain:

  • [responding to TD G] As long as I have been monitoring case fatality rate, the survival rate is rounded to 98% not 99%. But you are more afraid of a vaccine with a survival rate of 99.9999%.

I jump in to support TD G. a bit, and, keep in mind this is a multi-part post on FB that I will separate by line here:

TD G. the Doctor who admitted me to the ER Saturday also came up to my observation floor to discharge me. We had a good 30-minute talk each time. He noted that he sees all the markers (D-dimer test) in Covid patients for micro blood clots. [He did say he sees it less in vaccinated patients than unvaccinated — I do not want to put words in his mouth] He sees the same for people coming in after vaccination not feeling well.   John Stokes (NCAA golfer) is just the latest example of heart issues related to the vaccine. My buddy (a Federal Firefighter) story about that 28 year drill Sgt essentially dying shortly after his 2nd shot from a widow maker (if it weren’t for all the people around who could perform CPR — broken ribs and sternum because CPR was done the entire trip to the hospital). Marion Gruber, director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review, and Phil Krause, deputy director, will leave their positions in October and November, respectively, have said they are leaving because of disagreements over the booster. And my favorite, with very little autopsies done, the few that have been done within a week or two of the 1st or 2nd shot show a causal relation in about 30-to-40 percent. Plus everything TD said.


99.999%

DOC J keeps saying the survival rate of the vaccines is 99.999. But if he were honest, he would say it may be much lower [quoting my previous post, and added a tad more of the quote here]:

When DOC J says
  • “So the virus is far more fearful than the vaccine could possibly be,” he added. “Otherwise, we’re living in a magic universe if somehow a vaccine is more dangerous than a fast-multiplying virus.”
  • If the vaccine was “as bad” as conspiratorial websites say it is, he said, “we should be seeing millions of people dropping like flies, but we don’t even see the thousands of people.”

I am not a “conspiratorial website,” to be clear. And in fact, I often rant against conspiracies. And I agree, I do not think they are as bad as some say… however, I also do not think they are as safe as Doc Sarfati makes them out to be either. (For reasons already stated and to be stated, below.)

The people who have died from blood clots, heart attacks, and the like, after a 1st or 2nd dose have not had the proper medical evaluations to justify such “matter of fact” statements.

In reality, we do not know the REAL RATES of deadly side-effects so to examine the topic fully.

AUTOPSIES

AGAIN,

  • In short, Dr. Schirmacher performed autopsies on 40 people who had died within two weeks of receiving a Covid jab. Of those, 30%-40% could be directly attributed to the “vaccines.” He is calling for more autopsies of those who die shortly after getting injected to see if his numbers pan out. But Germany has thus far been reluctant to act. Meanwhile, the report of this highly respected pathologist and pro-vaccine doctor is being suppressed. (NOQ REPORT)

I don’t think this is a big conspiracy. In fact, the reasons why autopsies are not done that often is a combination of (a) the acceptance en masse of the change in death certificates by the CDC in April of last year as well as (b) a financial interest:

  • Unfortunately, autopsy rates have fallen from 25% to less than 5% over the past four decades. It never was a revenue producer for anyone except malpractice attorneys (WND).

Related as well to the already noted article about hospitals postponing elective surgeries via the Long Beach Business Journal is this detailed article by way of Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (Penn LDI)

  • Hospitals lost more than $20 billion in revenue when the pandemic led to an unprecedented nationwide shutdown in elective surgical procedures from March to May 2020.


INFO BREAK


The CDC estimates that 83% of the American population has contracted Covid-19 (NEWSWEEK) — before the Delta variant. Eighty-three percent of 331.5 million is 275.1 million. Total deaths [although I highly disagree with this number] is 684,000. So the IFR rate for Covid AS A WHOLE is 0.25% of the population who most likely has got Covid. Similar to my MARCH 2020 numbers, understanding the numbers like this help us cut through the media B.S.

Plus, I argue that much like how we calculate flu seasons… we shouldn’t calculate the total to dat, rather, we should have a data set from the 2020-2021 Covid season. Because we know Covid was here in September of 2019, which would put us separate from 2019-2020 season of Covid. Someone needs to do what I did to the age groups and-or the 2020-2021 season. We are currently in the 2021-2022 season.

  • 2019-2020
  • 2020-2021
  • 2021-2022 (current)

These are the years the numbers should be broken down from. If we are going to do a similar thing with Covid as the CDC does with the flu. And, if you do this, say, compare the 2017-2018 Flu outbreak to the 2020-2021 Covid numbers to the IFR, the numbers would be almost identical.

For instance, this graph (which you can enlarge by clicking it) even states what I have above:

  • The number of cases displayed reflects how many have been tested & confirmed so far. It does NOT include the potentially many undetected people who are currently infected with COVID-19, whether asymptomatic or undiagnosed.

So again, that 1.8 fatality rate shown in most media broadcasts is not correct. Even the numbers from the UK do not reflect the IFR:

And this, collected over at PECKFORD 42:

THE INFECTION FATALITY RATE

According to the World Health Organisation, the mean infection fatality rate (“IFR”) for COVID-19 is less than 0.2%. This is the percentage of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who die. That data has now been fleshed out in more detail in a recent paper. Across all countries, the median IFR and the infection survival rate were as follows (rounded to two decimal places):

That is the extent of the problem that public health policies like lockdowns and mandatory vaccines are solving for. And this is the first elephant no one is talking about…..


BREAK OVER


DOC J responds to me lightly:

  • Sean G, My figures come from VAERS-reported deaths divided by the total number of people vaccinated. It’s not that hard. As usual, everything you fear from the vax you should fear a thousand times more from the virus. This includes blood clots and D-dimer. (Linked paper from JULY 2020: D-dimer level is associated with the severity of COVID-19)

I respond:

DOC J as an example. The autopsies done by Dr. Schirmacher were not reported to VAERS. So there is an under reporting happening that was the point of the two instances of autopsies noted in my post.


ABC DETROIT

[I am posting more of PJ-MEDIA’S excellent article here than I did in my response for my readers]

ABC in Detroit got a lot more than it bargained for when it asked its viewers on Facebook this question:
  • After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19? If you’re willing to share your family’s story, please DM us your contact information. We may reach out for a story we’re working on.

The post garnered more than 100,000 responses, almost all of which talked about family members the readers say were either injured or died after receiving the COVID vaccine. None of the reports can be verified, but the sheer number of responses is anecdotally interesting. The “ratio,” as the kids say, is epic. 

Audrey Tarrance Ravenna wrote, “After the vaccines were available, 3 family members did their duty and got vaccinated. One suffered 2 strokes, one suffered neurological problems/tremors, one suffered a pulmonary embolism. All three died.” She went on to add that she doesn’t know anyone who has had COVID except herself and she survived.

Dee Ann L Voth wrote, “My friend passed away from covid and she was fully vaccinated!” Amanda Anderson added, “My dad passed away in July after a stroke. I often wonder if it was from the vaccine.”

Jacki Thomas asked, “Have they reached out to anyone to research those who lost loved ones after or with the vaccinations yet??? Crickets?”

Tammi Marie Watts Staffer said, “My friend’s father was paralyzed after his first vax.” Scott Donaldson wrote, “My stepdad’s mom passed very shortly after Moderna.”

Kristy Branch wrote, “My 78-year-old father was pretty health [sic]he got the Moderna now he’s walking with the walker [because] he keeps falling he’s weak he shakes and he has bathroom issues now I tried to get him not to do itbut he believed you crooked lying people from the news.”

Jen Roberton pointed out that the news station isn’t making any effort to get the other side of the story and it shows. “This is the response I expected. The media is asking the wrong questions.”

Lani Rose reported, “My son’s classmate lost her mother from heart complications due to the vaccine.” Lauren Greer replied to Rose, saying, “I lost my aunt! She never had heart issues before and suddenly after the vaccine, she died from complications with myocarditis??”

Holly Mulkey wrote, “My mom passed away in her sleep the day she got the vaccine. Her autopsy showed enlarged heart.”

Anna Mattheson wrote, “My friend David 40-years-old 2 days after vaccination heart failure and passed away.”

Jasmine Shirley said, “I have an appointment with a cardiologist due to some very random heart issues that started a week or two after my first shot.”

Kimberly Delvero wrote, “What about the vaccinated loved ones that were lost??????…. No one wants to talk about that??? It’s all about the unvaccinated and keeping the fear goingabsolutely ridiculous!”

The comments go on and on like this for pages and pages. With this kind of response, you would think that a curious media would look into these claims, talk to doctors, look at autopsies, and give even the slightest bit of attention to people who are experiencing unexplained tragedies. Instead, they are looking the other way and digging for stories so they can pin the pandemic on the unvaccinated. We saw the news orchestrate a fake story about “ivermectin overdoses” in order to smear the vaccine-hesitant just this month!

Perhaps, instead of demonizing people who have fears about the vaccine based on personal experience and questions about possible side effects, the media could take some time to talk to them and investigate their claims. Getting to the bottom of what is happening and why might actually help alleviate fears of vaccination. But by ignoring all these stories, the media is causing distrust of the vaccine and the establishment……

(PJ-MEDIA)

TD G. comments again:

  • [speaking to DOC J] When I used VAERS as a source, you thought it was untrustworthy. Now suddenly they are gospel?

When I saw this comment, I mentally noted that this is probably the case, that is, DOC J may have bemoaned the VAERS database previously; however, he is either just using the source of his “opponents” [we are all friends in this and the afterlife] to make a point. A tactic in good conversation showing often that “fleshed out” the position is still weak or contradictory. OR, he is being forced with the mounting evidence to look at this database more seriously. Either way, he is backed in the proverbial, rhetorical corner.

HOSPITALIZATIONS

I add some more information newly released that lends more information to the debate. The debate not just here but the broader debate in the public. [Again, expanding my quote from RIGHT SCOOP]:

A new report out today, written up by the Atlantic, suggests that nearly half of all COVID hospitalizations are, in reality, patients who found out they had COVID after they were admitted for something else or only had mild symptoms:

Here’s more from the Atlantic:

[….]

The authors of the paper out this week took a different tack to answer a similar question, this time for adults. Instead of meticulously looking at why a few hundred patients were admitted to a pair of hospitals, they analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country. Then they checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent. (The latter criterion is based on the National Institutes of Health definition of “severe COVID.”) If either of these conditions was met, the authors classified that patient as having moderate to severe disease; otherwise, the case was considered mild or asymptomatic.

The study found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

This increase was even bigger for vaccinated hospital patients, of whom 57 percent had mild or asymptomatic disease. But unvaccinated patients have also been showing up with less severe symptoms, on average, than earlier in the pandemic: The study found that 45 percent of their cases were mild or asymptomatic since January 21. According to Shira Doron, an infectious-disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, and one of the study’s co-authors, the latter finding may be explained by the fact that unvaccinated patients in the vaccine era tend to be a younger cohort who are less vulnerable to COVID and may be more likely to have been infected in the past.

Color me shocked that COVID hospitalizations might only be half as much as being claimed. It sounds similar to what we saw last year in the conflated tallies of those who died “because of COVID” versus those who died “with COVID”.

This prompted JIM G. to respond with a good bit of information. Mind, you, this is jot the JIM G. I get into frequent discussions with on different subject.

  • SEAN G, Some have said that most who are coming to the hospitals now are the unvaccinated. One reason for this is because the hospitals count a person that has taken the jab less than 14 days as an “unvaccinated”.

I just wish to finish up this post with other side news I came across on Facebook.


AN RPT BONUS


HUMOR

Facebook, which banned me for 3-days today – but then realized they were wrong. I took the previous graphic that got me banned and remade it better:

ADMISSIONS

And here I need to apologize to Alex Berenson’s UNREPORTED TRUTHS. Why? Because I am grabbing his entire post as I think it is important. The link is at the bottom of his post, if you wish to go to the source:

The FDA just released its briefing book for Pfizer’s request for a third dose of Comirnaty (or is that BNT162b2? No matter! It’s approved either way, sorta).

It is every bit the mess we all expected.

Let’s go to the highlights:

Pfizer basically hasn’t bothered to test the booster AT ALL in the people actually at risk – it conducted a single “Phase 1” trial that covered 12 people over 65. The main Phase 2/3 booster trial (beware efforts to cover multiple “phases” of drug research at once, you want it bad you get it bad) included no one over 55.

No one.

As in NONE.

Which makes total sense – why test the booster in people who actually need it because they’re at high risk from the ro? Nothing good can come of that.

So that’s our trial design.

Now safety:

Of the 300 people who received the booster, one had a heart attack two months later. No worries, Pfizer concluded it wasn’t related. Yay!

Five percent of recipients had enlarged lymph nodes.

How about effectiveness?

Well, we don’t have enough data – or any data, really – telling us how well the booster will work.

But the FDA made Pfizer go back and review its data from the pivotal clinical trial from last year. Pfizer compared people who received the vaccine with those who received the placebo and THEN the vaccine (the best we can do at this point, since Pfizer blew up the trial by giving placebo subjects the vaccine, double-yay!)

Pfizer concluded that your annual risk of getting Covid-19 IF YOU ARE VACCINATED is about 7 percent.

Further:

“An additional analysis appears to indicate that incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2 at the start of the analysis period.”

Oh.

But don’t worry, Uncle Joe already told you you can get your booster on September 20. If it’s good enough for our fearless leader, it should be good enough for the FDA, amirite?

SCIENCE!

Ouch!

MEDIA

Here are two media pieces I watched today:

  • This CBS produced 60 Minutes was from 1979 | Mary Tyler Moore, Swine Flu Shot August 19, 2021

And here is an absolutely hilarious video by Tucker Carlson that had me belly rolling in bed this morning:

  • Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host weighs in on the left’s hypocrisy regarding the government dictation of personal health decisions.

Lol.

KABUKI THEATRE

A friend noted the following:

  • Not trying to minimize the impact of Covid. But the “pandemic” has really been hijacked for political motives. Look at this Kabuki theater. Before and After the cameras were turned on.

GOOD ARTICLE

More Declassified Documents Showing Democrats Love Hoaxes

RPT’s Comment’s After Article

Government Agent Whose Altered Email Enabled the Russia Hoax Won’t Spend a Day in Jail or Pay Any Fine

The Russia hoax undermined a duly elected president and continues to divide the nation. But one of the key figures who abused the trust of the people will not face prison time, reports Fox News.

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to 12 months probation and 400 hours of community service Friday after pleading guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

That false statement had major consequences. The altered email cast suspicion on Page and thereby Trump, and created a false justification to wiretap Page.

[….]

What about the abuse of trust, the destruction of the FBI’s reputation, undermining the FISA court system, and the Russia hoax Clinesmith enabled and which still infects millions of American minds to this day?

“Altering the email has forever changed the course of my life,” Clinesmith said. “I have lost the means to provide for my growing familylost the ability to give back to my nationthe shame and remorse will stay with me forever.”

The Trump presidency was not allowed to get off to anything like a normal start and was undermined by this case for most of its four years. Trump never truly overcame it despite being exonerated by the Mueller report, which found no American anywhere colluded with the Russians to impact the 2016 election.

Politico reports the prosecutors wanted Clinesmith to spend time in jail.

While prosecutors urged the judge to send Clinesmith to prison to send a message to others in government not to try something similar, Boasberg said he believed that message had already been sent.

Another message has been sent. Clinesmith will be the only Russia hoax figure prosecuted and he need not worry. Some left-wing foundation will give him a do-nothing job before long. Or CNN or MSNBC will give him an on-air analyst role.

(PJ-MEDIA)

POLITICO noted the judge saying “he believed that message had already been sent.” I doubt anyone in my own family — bedsides me and my boys and wife — knows that the Russian Collusion case has been shown to be a hoax. These are like retractions in a paper… front-page headlines splash the New York Times or the Washington Post, and then a month later a retraction is given on D3… which no one sees… so they think the headlines are still true. Trump was correct when referring to it as a witch hunt.

With declassified documents supporting the years of hard work by JOHN SOLOMON, CHUCK ROSS, SARA A. CARTER, or MOLLIE HEMINGWAY. Authors putting out excellent books like:

Recent declassified documents do not add information to the issue, they merely show that the above authors of books and columns to be 100% vindicated!

People making decisions based off of the NYTs, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, Washington Post, MSNBC, and the like… were LIED to for 3-years. The result?

  • Gallup Poll Shows 78% Of Democrats Mistakenly Believe Russia Changed Election Results

Not one intelligence agency or even Obama’s head of the Homeland Security Dept has supported that. I bet a lot of people (I would say almost all except for my sons) know the following:

  • President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. [RPT addition: about 50 were pro-Hillary]

Democrats and “Republicans” just continue to believe nonsense based on some late-night talk show comedians and CNN/NPR. (I say “Republicans” because many who claim to be “Reagan Republicans” would today think his favorite publication [HUMAM EVENTS] is for white supremacists.) The L.A. Times use to carry columns by Dennis Prager and other conservative thinkers. No more are they carried by the paper.

Frankly, it’s sad. And dangerous… they are ripe to believe BIG LIES about Republicans and Trump.

  • Poll: 61 Percent of Democrats Say Republicans Are ‘Racist,’ ‘Bigoted,’ ‘Sexist’ (2016)
  • 49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist…. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of self-described political liberals believe those who vote for Trump are racist. (2019)
  • 86% of Democrats think Trump is a racist

How do you make headway with these corporate news feeders of CNN/MSNBC?? I imagine Trump gaining in almost every major demographic means nothing to them? Trump gained more in these categories than in 2016…

  • Male Hispanics;
  • Female Hispanics;
  • Male Blacks;
  • Female Blacks;
  • Female Whites.

The only category he lost numbers in since 2016 were white males. Like I say, Trump needs to go back to racism school. But the tactics of the Left have not changed a bit… just more people truly believe it. And they expect us to be civil, and unite — exactly when did Democrats practice the “civility” to which they wish to return?….

  • When Barry Goldwater accepted the 1964 Republican nomination, California’s Democratic Gov. Pat Brown said, “The stench of fascism is in the air.”
  • Former Rep. William Clay Sr., D-Mo., said President Ronald Reagan was “trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from ‘Mein Kampf.'”
  • Coretta Scott King, in 1980, said, “I am scared that if Ronald Reagan gets into office, we are going to see more of the Ku Klux Klan and a resurgence of the Nazi Party.”
  • After Republicans took control of the House in the mid-’90s, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., compared the newly conservative-majority House to “the Duma and the Reichstag,” referring to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.
  • About President George Herbert Walker Bush, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said: “I believe (Bush) is a racist for many, many reasons. … (He’s) a mean-spirited man who has no care or concern about what happens to the African American community. … I truly believe that.”
  • About the Republican-controlled House, longtime Harlem Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, in 1994, said: “It’s not ‘s—-‘ or ‘n——-‘ anymore. (Republicans) say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.'” A decade later, Rangel said, “George (W.) Bush is our Bull Connor,” referring to the Birmingham, Alabama, Democrat segregationist superintendent of public safety who sicced dogs and turned fire hoses on civil rights workers.
  • Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s presidential campaign manager, in 1999, said: Republicans have a “white boy attitude, (which means) ‘I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.’ They don’t see it or think about it. It’s a culture.” The following year, Brazile said: “The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and (Rep.) J.C. Watts, (R-Okla.), because they have no program, no policy.They’d rather take pictures with Black children than feed them.”
  • About President George W. Bush, former Vice President Al Gore said: “(Bush’s) executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations, from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. And every day, they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.” Digital “brownshirts”?
  • About George W. Bush, George Soros, the billionaire Democratic donor, said: “The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. … Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and communist propaganda machines.”
  • Former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, in a 2006 speech at historically Black Fayetteville State University said, “The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side.”
  • Former Gov. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 2005, described the contest between Democrats and Republicans as “a struggle between good and evil. And we’re the good.” Three years later, Dean referred to the GOP as “the white party.”
  • After Hurricane Katrina, Democratic Missouri Senate candidate Claire McCaskill said George W. Bush “let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were Black.”
  • Feminist superlawyer Gloria Allred, in 2001, referred to Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as “Uncle Tom types.”
  • Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, in 2006, said, “The (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking about.”
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chairwoman in 2011, said “Republicans want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”……

I bet almost all of my family believes Trump mocked a disabled man’s handicap; think that when he said “there are fine people on both sides” he was saying there were “fine Nazis or white supremacists;” or think that racists and white supremacists have voted Republican in general; or that the bodies natural defenses in immunity are non-existent and only “vaccines” can bring immunity.

These are dangerous lies to believe.

Here is more regarding the latest declassified documents… one of the biggest lies the media has pushed in it’s life

The First Trump Declassified “Russia Document” Christopher Steele’s 2017 Confession To The FBI — Steele told FBI he leaked Russia collusion story to help Clinton and Great Britain, and was connected to his primary dossier source by former NSC staffer and impeachment witness Fiona Hill. (JUST THE NEWS)

….The FBI report of an interview agents conducted with Steele in September 2017, nearly a year after he had been terminated as an informant, provided explosive information about his motives in working simultaneously for the FBI and the opposition research firm for Clinton’s campaign. The document was obtained by Just the News and at times reads like a confession from the now-infamous former MI6 agent and author of the anti-Trump dossier.

Steele told agents that then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Clinton email investigation in fall of 2016 became his tipping point for leaking the anti-Trump collusion research that his company Orbis Intelligence had gathered and given to the FBI.

“STEELE explained that as the election season went on, they as a company were riding two horses — their client and the FBI — and after FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of the Hillary Clinton investigation, they had to pick one horse and chose the business client relationship over the relationship with the FBI,” the interview report stated.

 “They followed what their client wanted, and they spoke to the press,” the report noted.

You can read the full interview report here.

You can read the notes of the interview here,

Steele and his partner Christopher Burrows even suggested the FBI deserved some of the blame for the decision to leak to the news media and Sen. John McCain’s office.

“STEELE and BURROWS described the overall situation as being one where it was ‘your [FBI] fault’ and ‘our fault,'” the memo reported, adding that Burrows was also upset the FBI had not paid Steele for his anti-Trump work.

The two British citizens told the FBI that concerns about the impact of a Trump presidency also motivated them…..

Mainstream Media before Trump was President and immediately when he set foot into the Oval Office was creating false stories about him. For instance, MLK’s Bust story an hour after Trump was elected: “On the evening of January 20, TIME White House correspondent Zeke Miller incorrectly reported that the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office.” Most major news outlets carried it right away, and this was the beginning of 16 fake stories by early February that people ate up: Hence #FakeNews

The same people lapped up the phony Russia investigation, helping push the false narrative of Democrats for almost 3-years:

DECLASSIFIED DOCS

People who believed in this stuff and made decisions based on it ARE the problem with our body-politic. More than Trump. Spreading lies that were bigger than Obama’s Iran Deal thingy and bigger than any Trump lie. Seditious lies cooked up by Hillary in 2016.

Sharyl Attkisson Explains the Media Bias to CNN (UPDATED GRAPHS)

(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.

BTW, CNN doesn’t escape this malaise either.

UPDATED… (April 2014)

…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):

Sharyl Attkisson Keeps Peddling Hollow ‘Liberal Media Bias’ Claim Former CBS Reporter Apparently Can’t Produce Any Proof For Conspiracy

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.

…read more…

This will unfold more over the weeks to come, if the pressure is kept on CBS.

Democrat Shenanigans (Conservative Media’s Windfall)

In a conversation on FACEBOOK I said the following for a point #2 out of three… I thought it worthwhile to pass along as a point others can use it in conversation:


More Facebook Meanderings


SECOND. This is the entire issue regarding our Intelligence agencies… They abused the FISA Court warrant process. I was told that the Steele Dossier was only a small part of the warrant. For two years by Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, etc-etc. (BTW, the names represent Intel, the CIA, and the FBI). Turns out it was literally the only thing use as John Solomon, Kimberly Strassel, Sara Carter, Sean Hannity, Mollie Hemingway, Chuck Ross, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc — said.

The funny thing about this is for two years I have said that there will be some RICH people out of this. I have said for two years Flynn’s case will be ultimately thrown out. Carter Page is already setting up a large lawsuit.

(Here is a quick excerpt from a previous Facebook discussion)

Just a quick note here. The four U.S. citizens spied on by the government we’ll have a great case to make in court to sue set government (during the whole Russian Collusion conspiracy against Trump). So not only did the original investigation cost many millions of dollars, it is possible that many millions more is going to be doled out.

NowAdam Schiff has himself (against proper procedure) gone and gotten metadata from phone companies and then matched it up with journalist an opposing political persons phones. Without a warrant. I assume another criminal case will start around this And, much like the other case millions of dollars may be doled out to these individuals who had their metadata illegally seized by the government.

BY THE WAY, you can read here “Democrats” when I say government. Ultimately all the taxpayers will have to — and have paid for it. But these incurred cost come by way of Democrats alone. (As well as never Trumper’s)

(I also noted two-years ago that if police were to fraudulently come into a home using fake warrants, when the judge found out the case was based on them, would vacate the original warrants and throw the entire case before the court out…. So too Barr may descend the original warrants which would mean all the cases based on them would be overturned. So whether one thought that Manafort was a dirty SOB and deserved jail. It wouldn’t matter.)

NOW, the general public has seen Fox News as the only news org showing what the IG REPORT said, alongside the rest of the names I named. Much like the dirty warrants overturning cases (even if people are truly dirty)… So too has the Left emboldened media people they dispose as being the only truth tellers on important issues — at least in a growing segment of the public.

In other words, not only did Democrats with TDS reelect Trump. They increased the audience to sources of news they despise [who were correct in their summation of the whole “FISA/Russia” thing].

Here are some posts of mine detailing the failure of our “Intel community” (like the Intel community should be spying on an American candidate and later a President, rather than giving him defensive briefings)

The Liberal Media’s Most Embarrassing Russia Fails

(Via MRCTV/NEWSBUSTERS) The Sunday afternoon letter from Attorney General Bill Barr on the Mueller report has rocked the political world and burst more than a few bubbles in the liberal media, most notably their years-long insistence that the President and/or his team colluded with Russia.

Some journalists have conceded this reality, while others are mimicking Japanese soldiers still fighting World War II in 1971……

The Medias Most Embarrassing Fails (Via THE DAILY CALLER):

1. CNN ACCUSES DON JR. OF WIKILEAKS COLLUSION

Last December, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. to give him access to stolen documents a full 10 days before they were released to the public.

Unfortunately for CNN, it turns out their sources gave them the wrong date. Don Jr. actually received an email with access to the stolen docs on Sept. 14, 2016, after they had already been released publicly.

2. ABC TANKS STOCK MARKET WITH FAKE FLYNN NEWS

ABC was forced to suspend Brian Ross after he falsely reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians.

The stock market dropped a few hundred points at the news — but it turned out to be fake.

ABC clarified that Flynn was actually prepared to testify that Trump asked him to contact Russia while the administration was transitioning into office. Pretty standard preparation for an incoming president.

3. THE MOOCH IS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION

CNN earns another spot on this list for their shoddy reporting about former Trump adviser Anthony, “The Mooch,” Scaramucci. In June 2017, CNN relied on a single unnamed source to claim that Scaramucci was under investigation for a meeting he took with a Russian banker prior to Trump’s inauguration.

The Mooch denied the story and CNN later gave him a much-deserved apology. Oh and three CNN employees resigned over the botched piece.

4. BLOOMBERG’S DIRTY DEUTSCHE BANK SCOOP

Bloomberg initially reported in December that special counsel Robert Mueller had “zeroed in” on Trump by subpoenaing Deutsche Bank records for the incoming president and his family.

Bloomberg later admitted that Mueller was looking for records relating to “people affiliated” with Trump.

5. SESSIONS EXONERATED

Last May, CNN was sure that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had botched protocol when he didn’t list meetings he had with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms. To CNN and other establishment media outlets, this was proof that Sessions was hiding something related to Russia.

A little over six months later, CNN quietly walked back the scandal, explaining the FBI sent emails informing Sessions’ aide that he did not need to disclose the meetings on his forms because they were carried out in the course of his duties as a senator.

6. RUSSIANS AREN’T JUST HACKING THE ELECTION — THEY’RE HACKING OUR POWER GRID

The Washington Post claimed in January 2017 that Russians were hacking the U.S. power grid through a company in Vermont, only to change the story to say that only one laptop was infiltrated. It turns out that one laptop was never even connected to the power grid.

7. REPUBLICANS FUNDED THE DOSSIER! 

A number of news outlets have consistently claimed that Republicans initially paid for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, failing to note that Steele wasn’t even contracted by Fusion GPS until after the GOP donors pulled funding. The Republican donors say they paid Fusion for standard opposition research and that they have zero connection to the dossier.

The media has perpetuated this falsehood so consistently that even former FBI director James Comey was confused, repeating the lie in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier…..

(READ THEM ALL!)

The Silver Lining Mid-Term Election (UPDATED)

Mind you this is after reading some articles and listening to talk radio and dissenting callers expressing their opinion. BUT RUSH LIMBAUGH is the boss of this! First of all, I wish to say, if the 45-people who left Congress for a variety of reasons did so in part because they believed the media in their “Blue Wave” supposition. Obviously many of these Republicans included ideas of their dislike of Trump, or that they were in leading positions and do not want to be “demoted,” but instead transition into the private sector, as well as spend time with family, also reading the tea-leaves about the “blue wave” (etc., etc.). And so, with the amount of GOP incumbent calling it quits for a variety of reasons, the Democrats won the amount of seats they did this election. They would have won MUCH less if these Republicans stuck through another couple years to the 2020 election. Here are some examples that show just how bad this first mid-term is for the party in power:

  • The most House seats ever lost by a president’s party in power was Obama in 2010. He lost 63. Next was Bill Clinton in 1994. He lost 52. In 1958, Eisenhower lost 48, as did Ford and Nixon in 1974. They lost 48. Lyndon Johnson in ’66, lost 47. Harry Truman in ’46 lost 45 seats. George W. Bush in 2006 lost 30. In 1950, Harry Truman lost 29. Reagan, in ’82, lost 26 seats, and in 2016 Trump is at 26 or 27 — and those are New York Times records. (RUSH LIMBAUGH)
  • UPDATE: More LIKE 37 seats.

So, my point is that what the GOP lost in the House yesterday, is FAR better than recent democrats as an example. AND, not only that, if the Republicans who left stuck around, the Democrats would have won less in the House. So to lose the amount we did was with thanks to Trump and keeping a natural cycle to a minimum. Very few midterm Presidents have added to the Senate during their tenure.

And WHY did Trump deem it important to spend time on the campaign trail for Senate races and not the House races? Because the Senate is where judges are confirmed — the Senate. So if say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies or retires, Trump/Mitch McConnell could nominate another Justice via a Senate with more Republicans who are more conservative than their predecessors. [UPDATE, and on cue]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seriously injured in a Wednesday evening fall in her chambers at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The health of the 85-year-old justice and progressive favorite is much-watched, lest a sudden change of events give President Donald Trump a third appointment to the high court.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell in her office at the Court last evening,” the Supreme Court public information office said Thursday morning. “She went home, but after experiencing discomfort overnight, went to George Washington University Hospital early this morning. Tests showed that she fractured three ribs on her left side and she was admitted for observation and treatment. Updates will be provided as they become available.”

The injury precluded Ginsburg from attending Thursday morning’s ceremonial investiture of Justice Brett Kavanaugh

(THE DAILY CALLER)

But they also confirm judges for the lower courts as well as the Circuit Courts (who are very Left leaning). So we should confirm at least two-a-month for 2-years. Four of the 13 federal appeals courts currently have more Republican:

With the Republican-led Senate rapidly considering and confirming many of his judicial nominees, Trump already has appointed 26 appeals court judges. That is more than any other president in the first two years of a presidency, according to Russell Wheeler, a scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank, although he points out that there are more appellate judges now than in the past.

Trump’s Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, appointed 55 in eight years as president.

Only four of the 13 federal appeals courts currently have more Republican-appointed judges than Democratic selections.

The two appellate courts closest to shifting to Republican-appointed majorities are the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Trump already has made three appointments to the 11th Circuit, leaving it with a 6-6 split between Democratic and Republican appointees. The 3rd Circuit, to which Trump has made one appointment, now has a 7-5 Democratic-appointee majority, with two vacancies for Trump to fill.

[….]

here are currently 13 appeals court vacancies, six of them with pending nominees picked by Trump, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Both the 11th Circuit and 3rd Circuit have major cases pending in which Trump appointees could make their mark.

An 11th Circuit three-judge panel on July 25 revived a civil rights lawsuit challenging the state of Alabama’s move to prevent the city of Birmingham from increasing the minimum wage. Alabama has asked for a rehearing, which would be heard by the entire 12-judge 11th Circuit if the request is granted.

In the 3rd Circuit, the Trump administration has appealed a lower court decision blocking the Justice Department from cutting off grants to Philadelphia over so-called sanctuary city policies limiting local cooperation with federal authorities on immigration enforcement….

This is Yuuuge. The courts will have Constitutionalists influencing the Courts for generations.

OTHER “Silver Linings”?

Battleground-State Dems Who Opposed Kavanaugh All Defeated

Incumbent Senate Democrats in battleground states who opposed the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination appeared to have paid a price on Election Day, with senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Indiana’s Joe Donnelly, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Florida’s Bill Nelson all suffering defeat.

In fact, every Democrat incumbent who opposed Kavanaugh in states rated “toss up” by Fox News lost their race. In contrast, the lone Democrat who voted for Kavanaugh, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, won his race.

“Every Dem Senator in a competitive race who voted against Kavanaugh lost,” tweeted Tom Bevan, Co-founder of RealClearPolitics. Fox News polling offered evidence the Kavanaugh issue was a major problem for those battleground incumbent Democrats.

A Fox News poll from early October, just before the Kavanaugh confirmation vote, found 34 percent of North Dakotans said they would be less likely to vote for Heitkamp if she voted against Kavanaugh, with just 17 percent saying it would make them more likely to vote for her….

The Far-Left Scorecard

Josh Kraushaar compiled what he calls the progressive scorecard from last night. Note that it includes only seriously contested races. (Bernie Sanders won, as did the 29 year-old airhead from New York with the hyphenated name):

  • Arizona governor: Garcia loses
  • Florida governor: Gillum loses
  • Georgia governor: Abrams loses
  • Maryland governor: Jealous loses
  • Texas senator: O’Rourke loses
  • California 45th: Porter trails
  • Nebraska 2nd: Eastman loses
  • Pennsylvania 1st: Wallace loses
  • Virginia 5th: Cockburn loses

Dave Weigel adds three more to the scorecard:

  • Indiana 9th: Liz Watson loses
  • New York 24th: Dana Balter loses
  • Wisconsin 1st: Randy Bryce loses

This covers almost every region of the country. America isn’t quite ready for socialism yet.

Trump campaigned for 11-Senate people… 9 won.

Biggest Loser At Midterms? Barack Obama

But then there were the midterm campaigns that weren’t gimmes, some very high profile, and high media-exposure ones: Joe Donnelly of Indiana for Senate. Bill Nelson of Florida for Senate. Andrew Gillum of Florida for governor. Stacey Abrams of Georgia for governor.

Those were the ones Obama went hoarse campaigning for, yelling and waving his arms, voice cracking, speeches described as fiery, telling voters to vote for these guys or die. With Gillum in particular, racial appeals were a factor and Obama’s presence was supposed to help. Gillum had a big media buildup about being a first black governor of Florida as an argument to draw votes, and he later cried racism to fend off corruption allegations. Adding Obama to campaign was obviously part of the appeal. This time, the race-politics identity card simply failed.

And Obama? What did he get? Zilch. Zip. Zero. Nada. The voters rather noticibly rejected the ex-president’s appeal for votes. Been there, done that.

A prized and coveted Obama endorsement, or campaign stop, obviously isn’t the election winner in a tight race it used to be. In fact, with these midterms, when it matters, Obama’s a bust. The lesson here that Democrats will surely notice is that it’s largely useless. …

My contention is that the crazies in the Democrat Party may end up helping Trump and Republicans come 2020.


“Democrats couldn’t stop Trump, but they could slow him down and make life miserable for him,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist. “Subpoenas would be flying from Capitol Hill towards the White House as fast as they can print them out.” (THE HILL)

MSNBC’s Geist: Trump Would Welcome Impeachment Probe: Kavanaugh x 1000

Geist described his theory as “counterintuitive,” but it actually makes perfect sense. Imagine the spectacle of frothing Dems at House hearings, of rabid Dem members fighting for TV time to air their overwrought accusations. What better thing to ramp up the Republican base? 

As Willie said, this would be Kavanaugh times 1,000. And as most concur this morning, it was the Kavanaugh hearings that were largely responsible for galvanizing the GOP, leading to an expansion of the Republican Senate majority. Imagine what that spectacle, times 1,000, would do to create a wave of broken-glass Republicans in 2020.

WILLIE GEIST: Here’s a counterintuitive thought: President Trump would like nothing more than an impeachment investigation. Because it’s not going anywhere in the Senate, it’s dead, it’s a Republican-controlled Senate. And it’s the Kavanaugh situation multiplied times a thousand, which is Democratic overreach, and Donald Trump looks like the victim in the whole thing. He does not mind an impeachment investigation. 

6 Recent Democratic Scandals You’ve Never Heard About

(JUMP TO UPDATE) People have been arrested, UNDERCOVER VIDEO shown, and the continued violence against Republicans and Trump supporters (and past | 594 acts of media supported violence), as well as the continued MOB VIOLENCE (see my post) and property damage, and the past U.S. AG calling people to violence?? — In the age of…

…for the general public NOT TO KNOW is a diservice to them (or, a service to the Democrat Party) — Via TOWNHALL:

Here are the suspects in the line up: Beto O’Rourke, who is challenging Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), flat-out lied in a debate about his DUI arrest. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) accepted lavish gifts from donor and friend Salomon Melgen. For Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), one of the most vulnerable Democrats running for re-election, her husband apparently took advantage of a low-income housing tax credit program to make millions…for himself. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s staffer doxxed Republicans during the vicious fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), who is running for governor, reportedly got physical with a female staffer. And Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who is running to be the chief law enforcer of Minnesota, was hit with domestic abuse allegations that the media and his party seemingly decided to straight up ignore. Between all of these scandals, the media devoted less than 10 minutes of media attention from the Big Three, which was the focus of the study (via Newsbusters) [emphasis mine]:

When Texas Senate Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke lied about a past DUI arrest, it was so blatant even the liberal Washington Post’s fact checkers couldn’t let it pass.

On September 25 The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler reported the following:

During a debate with his rival, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) was asked point-blank about a drunken-driving incident when he was 26: Did he try to leave the scene of the crash? The Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News had recently obtained police reports of the collision and reported that O’Rourke had done so. O’Rourke responded with what appeared to be a well-practiced answer. He flatly denied trying to leave the scene of the crash but added that driving drunk was a “terrible mistake” and that he would not provide an excuse….The police reports show not only that O’Rourke was highly intoxicated but that a witness to the crash said he tried to leave the scene.

[…]

Big Three coverage: 0 seconds

CBS This Morning co-host Bianna Golodryga interviewed O’Rourke on the October 5 edition of CBS This Morning, but she never asked about his DUI.

[…]

Back in April, Democratic incumbent Senator Robert Menendez was officially admonished by the Senate for accepting gifts from a donor in exchange for promoting his interests.

On April 26, The New York Times’ Maggie Astor reported the following:

The Senate Ethics Committee “severely admonished” Senator Robert Menendez on Thursday for accepting gifts from a wealthy doctor while using his position as a senator to promote the doctor’s personal and financial interests. It also ordered Mr. Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, to repay the market value of all improper gifts he has not already repaid.

[…]

Big Three coverage: Total = 49 seconds (CBS 34 seconds, ABC 15 seconds, NBC 0 seconds)

[…]

Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Husband Takes Advantage of Government Program for Poor to Make Millions

Earlier this month, the husband of Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was accused of using a government program intended to help the poor, to personally enrich himself.

On October 5, Washington Free Beacon’s Brent Scher reported the following:

Since Claire McCaskill joined the Senate, her husband Joseph Shepard has made at least $11 million through a business that buys up tax credits awarded to Missouri affordable housing developers and sells them to high-income entities seeking tax relief.

[…]

Big Three coverage: 0 seconds

[…]

Former Staffer for Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Arrested for Doxxing Republicans

At the height of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, private information about Republican senators was illegally released to the public. A former Democratic staffer was arrested for the crime.

On the October 9 edition of FNC’s Special Report, anchor Bret Baier reported the following:

A former staff member for Democratic Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is still in jail tonight. Bail was denied this afternoon for Jackson Costco. He’s accused of committing several felonies including the release of personal information about Republican Senators on the Internet.

[…]

Big Three coverage: 0 seconds

[…]

Democratic Governor Nominee Jared Polis Pushes Female Employee

Democratic candidate for Colorado Governor Jared Polis was accused of pushing a former employee.

On September 25 The Washington Free Beacon’s Todd Shepherd reported the following:

Jared Polis, the Democratic nominee for governor in Colorado, was involved in a physical altercation with an ex-employee in which he admitted to police he pushed the woman, according to a police report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The incident dates back to June of 1999 and took place at an office Polis had in Boulder for a company called JPS International LLC.

[…]

Big Three coverage: 0 seconds

[…]

Democratic Congressman and DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison, back in August, was accused of physically abusing an ex-girlfriend.

On August 13 The Star Tribune’s J. Patrick Coolican, Maya Rao and Jessie Van Berkel reported the following:

A former girlfriend of U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison has accused him of domestic violence, which Ellison — a DFL candidate for Minnesota attorney general — denied on Sunday

The alleged incident between Ellison and Karen Monahan came to light Saturday night after her son posted about it on Facebook. She then confirmed it on Twitter. Ellison responded Sunday in a statement released by his campaign: “Karen and I were in a relationship which ended in 2016, and I still care deeply for her well-being.”

[…]

Big Three coverage: Total = 3 minutes, 47 seconds (CBS: 227 seconds, NBC 50 seconds, ABC 0 seconds)

UPDATE via POWERLINE:

News item: Antifa mob overruns Portland, and Democratic mayor stands aside. (And to think, I had dinner once with Ted Wheeler a few years ago, before he was elected mayor of Portland, and thought he was a sensible human being. Another case of misleading first impressions I guess.)

New item: Ricin sent to Sen. Susan Collins.
News item: Democrat assaults, critically injures Republican Senator in capitol.

Okay, so this last item is from 1851—the famous caning of Republican Senator Charles Sumner by southern Democrat Preston Brooks. But some things never change. And as Lincoln once said, “If we know where we are, and whither we are tending, we can better judge what to do, and how to do it.” And with the Democratic Party openly embracing mob tactics, we can make out a reversion to a very old pattern……….

“Media Errors Are ‘All in One Direction'” |Mollie Hemingway|

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: I think there are a couple of problems. One is that the media keep using anonymous sources who keep getting things wrong, and there’s no accountability when you’re using anonymous source. There’s no way you can say, “Well, I know I shouldn’t be trusting this person,” because we don’t know the people who are involved.

The other issue is this sort of animosity toward Trump that make all the errors happen in one direction. This is not the first time there’s been a major correction on a story that’s really big, and they always go in this sort of anti-Trump direction. That suggests that it’s not just what happens sometimes in journalism, which sometimes stories get wrong.

ED HENRY: People make mistakes.

HEMINGWAY: But there’s something else going on here, that is something we also probably saw in the 2016 election: an inability to understand what was happening in the country, and just on a very important big story. And here, this is a big, important story.

HENRY: Sure, and another big important story to your point, when ABC News Brian Ross, they got that story wrong about Michael Flynn, which is that “he’s prepared to testify that during the campaign he colluded with the Russians,” that all of a sudden the narrative was true. And ABC bought it hard, and really, it blew up in their face.

HEMINGWAY: It’s been happening throughout the media. CNN last had a series of problematic stories on the overall story of Russia collusion and investigation of same, including that they said that James Comey was going to testify that he never told Donald Trump he wasn’t under investigation when in fact he testified that he said it three times.

And again, no one is held accountable. No one gets fired, or very rarely does anyone get fired, or we (ever) see media taking it seriously.

ED HENRY: Rarely do we see a scoop saying, “Donald Trump is innocent.”

HEMINGWAY: Well, and just yesterday, there was that big story about the judge saying about the Mueller probe that we have serious problems here. It’s not that it didn’t get coverage. But it didn’t get that hysteria that you’re seeing with so many other issues.

(NEWSBUSTERS)

Leftist Scare Tactics About Tax Bill

Larry Elder plays CBS’ tax special with three families (watch the CBS video here at TOWNHALL) from different incomes: (a) little under $40,000 a year; (b) more than $150,000 a year; (c) couple’s combined income was $300,000. Turns out ALL THREE will get a tax return. The Democrats know they are in trouble!

Here Are The Winners And Losers Of The New Tax Law  — In that article is a link to THIS TAX CALCULATOR

CBS May Have Won the FAKE NEWS for 2017 Already

Keep in mind I do not recommend Mark Dice’s work in general. I reject his views on the conspiratorial view of history — to be clear, I in no way support the crazy site InfoWars OR Prison Planet. I do not support Mark’s article’s or his book or his YouTube Channel. I am merely posting this because he is right to point this out.

H-T MOONBATTERY:

  • CBS Radio News trying to reverse the races in the Chicago torture story is appalling in the extreme, but not out of character for the liberal media establishment. Mark Dice places this particular deception in the larger context of the fake news industry…

CBS News Radio aired this story which falsely depicted the Chicago Facebook Live hate crime horror as being conducted by racist white Donald Trump supporters who targeted a black man. In one of the most dishonest news stories in history, their report couldn’t have been further from the truth and shows how dishonest the liberal mainstream media is. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story.

Acid-Rain: Not a Song from DRI But A Myth from the 80’s

The following “News” item is just an early example of running with the story before the facts are in:

Remember the big “acid rain” scare during the 1970s and 1980s attributing damage to lakes and forests to emissions from Midwestern utilities? If so, did you ever hear the results of a more than half-billion-dollar, 10-year-long national Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study that was initiated in 1980 to research the matter?

Probably not.

As it turned out, those widespread fears proved to be largely unfounded, since only one species of tree at a high elevation suffered any notable effect, and acidity in lakes was traced to natural causes. The investigating scientists reported that they had “turned up no smoking gun; that the problem is far more complicated than it been thought; that other factors combine to harm trees; and that sorting out the cause-and-effect was difficult and in some cases impossible.”

(Forbes)

ACID RAIN MYTH:

The first section below is a good overview of what the second section shows in-depth.

Myth: Acid rain has caused a large portion of U.S. lakes to become acidic.

Fact: In a recent study of 7,000 Northeastern lakes, only 3.4% were found to be acidic. Most of these lakes are just as acidic as they were before the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, most of the acidic lakes in the United States are in Florida, where there is the least acid rain.

Myth: Data taken by proponents of the acid rain theory is accurate and conclusive.

Fact: Proponents of the acid rain theory have rested their claims on a deeply flawed series of articles by G.E. Likens and his co-workers in the 1970s. A careful evaluation of Likens’ research conducted by a group of scientists at Environmental Research and Technology, Inc., reveals that his data collection and selection was deliberately biased to support the desired conclusions.

Myth: Acid rain destroys vegetation.

Fact: Acid rain actually has a positive impact on vegetation. The nitrogen and sulfur characteristic of acid rain, act as nutrients essential for plant growth. The world’s first acid rain study concluded that, “the principle effect of acid rain is the improvement of crop yields and crop protein content.”

Myth: Acid Rain is unnatural.

Fact: Rainwater is naturally acidic. Because water is such a good solvent, even in the cleanest air, rainwater dissolves some of the naturally present carbon dioxide, forming carbonic acid. According to EPA regulations, Ph levels any lower than 5.0 are environmentally harmful. Yet, an analysis of ice from the Antarctic and the Himalayas, deposited hundreds and thousands of years ago when the environment was presumably pristine, had Ph values ranging from 4.8 to 4.2.

  • Information from Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery Gateway, 1993); Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery Gateway, 1990).

This next section can be read in full online, and comes from Edward Krug’s book, Environment Betrayed: The Abuse of a Just Cause (Kindle Edition), from the chapter on “Acid Rain: Forests and Fish.”

ABSTRACT

Acid rain first came to public attention with claims that it was rapidly killing forests and lakes on a broad basis. To assess the accuracy of these claims, Congress initiated the largest study to date of an environmental problem: the ten-year, $500′-million National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), which involved over three thousand scientists. NAPAP determined that acid rain may present a threat to one species of tree in 0.1 percent of eastern forests. The percentage of acidic lakes was also found to be much smaller than previously believed and not measurably increasing. Nevertheless, these scientific findings had little apparent impact on legislation passed in 1990, having been judged by some to be “not policy relevant.”

INTRODUCTION

George Will’s column of January 8, 1992, indicates that mainstream journalists are beginning to get the idea that in the hands of environmental advocates, estimates of environmental damage take on lives of their own, with few ties to reality. In the column, Mr. Will mused, “Whose interests are served by a numerical exaggeration? The answer often is: the people whose funding or political importance varies directly with the perceived severity of a particular problem” (Will, 1992).

Just about everyone of public importance had some sort of stake in acid rain being an environmental Armageddon. The scientific reality of the effects of acid rain differ enormously from public perception. And this is important for the setting of environmental policy because, unlike scientific fact, political reality in a democracy is established by vote.

The enormous gulf between fact and perception was brought out in the 60 Minutes story on acid rain (December 30, 1990). Correspondent Steve Kroft asked Dr. James Mahoney (then director of NAPAP) about the media representing acid rain as making a “silent spring” in the forests and lakes of the Northeastern United States. Director Mahoney commented that the media accounts of damage were overblown by quite a bit. When pressed why such fiction, rather than science, is being reported, Dr. Mahoney refused to address this issue and answered that his job is to do the science, not the reporting.

Yet the EPA had no such reservations about commenting, and commenting strongly, on media reporting. The EPA blasted the 60 Minutes acid rain story in a lengthy and detailed response claiming that outrageous statements were made (EPA, 1991). Let us examine the peculiar responses of the EPA, our public servant of environmental policy.

As a scientist, I can see how the EPA would have been upset by some of the comments made on 60 Minutes. The EPA is the lead federal agency of NAPAP. EPA Administrator Reilly is chairman of the President’s Joint Chairs Council, which oversees NAPAP. So I would have thought that the EPA would have been upset by the remark of David Hawkins (an activist for the Natural Resources Defense Council) who in effect told 60 Minutes that NAPAP has been a waste of time and money. And further, he said that in its ten years of existence, NAPAP has only confirmed what was known ten years ago!

Peculiarly, the EPA did not indicate any offense at all with this statement. But as a NAPAP scientist, I certainly was offended. We must remember that the United States almost did not have a NAPAP. In 1980, public opinion was very strong against waiting ten years for NAPAP to complete its study. Environmental activists established the conventional wisdom that by 1990 it would be too late: Rachael Carson’s prophesy of a “silent spring” would come to pass, with acid rain forever killing forests and lakes, by 1990.

Only a recalcitrant President Reagan, allied with Midwest rust-belt legislators, stood in the way of environmentalists’ demands. But the pressure became even too much for President Reagan who, by the end of 1983, was ready to capitulate. In late January/early February 1984, I was one of a committee of scientists who were asked to advise EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus on the choice of continuing research on acid rain or passing a new Clean Air Act. What the government would do hinged on how we answered the following question: will eastern North America survive five more years (will it survive until 1989) under the fierce onslaught of acid rain? The question seems ludicrous now, but back in 1984, it was considered foolish and immoral for anyone to even ask this question. President Reagan stayed with NAPAP.

Now we know that NAPAP’s findings did not confirm what was known ten years ago in 1980, as Mr. Hawkins claimed. And Mr. Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council is in the position to know this firsthand because this is the same Mr. Hawkins who was appointed by President Carter as the EPA assistant administrator responsible for acid rain. President Carter, then Mr. Hawkins’s boss, told the American public in 1980 that acid rain was one of the two most severe atmospheric environmental problems of the century. And Mr. Hawkins’s EPA lent the appearance of scientific credibility to President Carter’s assertion by publishing that the average Northeast lake had been acidified a hundredfold over just the last forty years as the result of acid rain (EPA, 1980)—a statement that has no basis in fact. Yet, by 1990 the EPA’s own research, as part of NAPAP, showed that, even in the Adirondacks, the area whose lakes are supposed to suffer the greatest acidification by acid rain, EPA data show that the average lake is no more acidic now than it was before the industrial era (Krug and Warnick, 1991).

The EPA produced a six-page, single-spaced rebuttal to what it considered outrageous statements made on 60 Minutes (EPA, 1991). Was the EPA response to 60 Minutes concerned about Hawkins’s assertion about wasted research dollars? No. Or about research results substantiating the public perception of 1980? No.

Yet EPA Administrator Reilly wrote in a letter to Science: “In the Senate hearings on my confirmation as EPA Administrator, the first criterion that I mentioned for an effective environmental policy was ‘respect for science'” (Reilly, 1990).

I could understand if Mr. Reilly were concerned about Mr. Hawkins having a less-than-respectful attitude for science on 60 Minutes when he said that NAPAP scientists were unable to see damage because we have very crude scientific tools but that the American public can look out their windows and see the damage being done. Mr. Hawkins then went on to characterize us as backpacking around in the woods.

Yet again, the EPA, which considers itself to be a scientific agency and is the lead agency of NAPAP, an agency whose administrator publically claims to have “respect for science,” did not indicate any offense at all with this statement.

What really offended the EPA? I was asked to comment on Mr. Hawkins’s characterization of us NAPAP scientists as not being able to see anything because we were larking around in the woods with crude scientific tools. I responded, “Actually we do know a lot. We know that the acid rain problem is so small that it’s hard to sec.”

The EPA took great offense to that statement.

The EPA promptly carried out an ad hominem attack on me! This was done even though I have letters from the EPA itself calling me a recognized leader in acid rain—even though I have been used by the EPA itself to review its acid rain programs, and I have even been used to advise Administrators Ruckelshaus and Thomas of the EPA about acid rain.

The EPA also released comments from an alleged peer review of a project report I published for NAPAP two years earlier. I call it an alleged peer review because:

  1. The first time I had heard of it was when a Washington Post reporter called me up on January 11, 1991—twenty-one months after the report was published.
  2. The report was peer-reviewed by NAPAP prior to publication. The EPA’s comments did not come from the NAPAP review of the report.
  3. I have yet to see a copy of this alleged peer review even after making a freedom of information request on January 14, 1991, to EPA Administrator Reilly to see it.

We can now begin to understand why the scientists who conducted the Adirondack lakes study for the EPA—the study that showed no net acidification—refused to publish this result. Similarly, the results of the EPA’s largest acidification research project—where no correlation could be found between acid rain and surface water acidity, and soil chemistry is the principal factor controlling the acidity of surface waters (EPA, 1989)—was not published by EPA scientists in the scientific literature. So, after waiting for up to two years for these data to be published, I finally published them in a letter to Science last fall (Krug and Warnick, 1991).

We see that, as public servants and as holders of the public trust, the EPA is unconcerned about public misinformation that exaggerates acid rain as an environmental problem. The EPA is unconcerned about science bashing in the media. Indeed, the EPA even partakes in it.

In conclusion, George Will’s column of January 8 hit the nail on the head: in the hands of environmental advocates, estimates of environmental damage take on lives of their own, with few ties to reality. As Mr. Will concludes, those who exaggerate are those whose funding or political importance varies directly with the perceived severity of a particular problem.

The reason why the public is so well misinformed on acid rain is that the environmental advocates are not just Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Just about everybody gains from the acid rain myth—everybody, that is, except you and me. The EPA likes it because, in terms of regulation, the 1990 Clean Air Act is ten times bigger than any previous environmental legislation, including the Clean Air Act of 1970. The government likes it because it gains more popularity, power, and control as government is seen doing something good for little cost; most environmental costs are off budget, being paid directly by the consumer. The media likes it because environmentalism is a just cause depicted in terms of good-versus-evil, David-versus-Goliath battles. Environmentalists hand the media popular and spectacular disaster stories pitting the blue-jeaned defenders of Mother Earth from the three-piece-suit Darth Vaders of big business, in this case, utilities spewing forth acid rain. The utilities like it because they get to pass on higher utility rates, along with increased profits, from the Public Utility Commissions onto you and me because we, the well-misinformed public, are demanding to be protected from the scourge of acid rain.

What a sweet setup!

Small wonder why scientists refuse to publish data showing acid rain has little or no measurable effect. When another acid rain scientist was asked by a magazine reporter why Ed Krug would take it upon himself to publish politically incorrect science, my colleague replied, “He was a bit immature in the area of political science” (Anderson, 1992).

On that note, let us quickly examine what political science has done to the science of acid rain.

POLITICAL SCIENCE: HISTORY

It is a little-known fact that the European and American acid deposition monitoring networks originated in the national agricultural experiment stations; these have been sampling and analyzing atmospheric deposition of N [nitrogen] and S [sulfur] for more than a century, not as contaminants but as beneficial nutrients (Krug, 1991). Among agronomists, such “pollution” was often called the poor man’s fertilizer. In Sweden, the world’s first national acid rain study determined that the principal effect of acid rain was improvement of crop yield and crop protein content (e.g., Johansson, 1959).

However, the insertion of the term “acid rain” into the modern literature and psyche by Likens and associates in 1972 “caught the attention of the scientific community as well as the public at large” (Abdullah, 1989). The deposition. How could anything called “acid rain” be anything but bad? So the results of the Swedish program became lost in history, and any scientist who brought up the point that acid rain might have a good side was ridiculed into oblivion.

Later on, NAPAP would report on the fertilizing effect of acid rain on forests, but would emphasize the negative potential of it. Fertilization of high altitude forest by acid rain, 0.1 percent of our eastern forests, may be increasing cold damage by making forests grow too long into the winter. The potential beneficial effects of fertilization on the remaining 99.9 percent of eastern forests remain safely buried in voluminous technical reports—reports little read by interested specialists, let alone by policy makers and the public.

Around the time that Likens and associates used two little words to permanently change the way that we think about deposition of N and S, the Norwegian national acid rain program came into existence.

The Norwegian national acid rain program of the 1970s, not the Swedish program of the 1940s and ’50s, established the research perspective of the subsequent American, Canadian, and European national acid rain programs. Regrettably, the proposal (Nr. 172/1974) to the Norwegian parliament for financing the program stated that “the aim of the project is to provide material for negotiations in order to limit the emission of SO2 in Europe” (Rosenqvist, 1990). Thus, scientific objectivity was lost from the inception; politicians proclaimed that acid rain is a problem and would pay those scientists who would support the political position.

Thus, political correctness came to acid rain twenty years ago.

A similar situation was manufactured in the United States. As the Norwegian program was ending in 1980, President Carter called acid rain one of the two atmospheric environmental crises of the century and started NAPAP at $10 million per year for ten years.

Thus, the inception of NAPAP was hardly scientifically objective either. And, at $10 million per year, NAPAP was merely window dressing to provide the appearance of scientific credibility for the claims of environmental disaster.

Remember, NAPAP was supposed to be investigating the sources of acid rain, its atmospheric chemistry and transport, as well as its myriad claimed effects, such as visibility, effects on crops, effects on forests, effects on lakes, effects on buildings, effects on human health. Then you take all of these effect and research areas and divide them among all of the participating agencies: the US Park Service, the US Geological Survey, the US Forest Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the US Department of Agriculture re, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the national laboratories, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, and (last but not least) the Environmental Protection Agency, and you see that $10 million per year will hardly pay the salaries of the administrative paper pushers, let alone support any meaningful research.

NAPAP was originally set up to put a rubber stamp on the false claims of disaster. It was not set up to do science.

This changed after 1984, when the Reagan administration asked for scientific rather than political opinion. We scientists reported to the administration that, contrary to popular belief, the world was nor going to end soon because of acid rain. Please let us do the science.

President Reagan’s response was not to push for a new version of the Clean Air Act. Not only did he continue NAPAP, but he increased NAPAP’s budget tenfold to around $100 million per year so that it could finally get around to doing meaningful scientific research on acid rain.

With the new budget and the emphasis now being on science, NAPAP also got a scientist to be its new director, Lawrence Kulp, a former director of the Lamont Geochemical Laboratory at Columbia University.

This made environmentalists furious. NAPAP became distinct from all other national acid rain programs: it was evolving into a scientific entity rather than remaining a creature of environmental politics. Since NAPAP was no longer likely to rubber stamp the claims of disaster, environmental activists would discredit NAPAP with the help of its powerful allies in the media and government, which most importantly included the EPA. And the EPA was NAPAP’s lead federal agency.

Thus NAPAP was not able to produce perfectly objective science. However, we must commend NAPAP for performing far better than we have any right to expect; NAPAP was overwhelmingly besieged from both within and without.

You can measure the success of NAPAP by environmentalists criticism of it and their vehement objections to the establishment of a “NAPAP” for global warming….

Sharyl Attkinsson Claims CBS Hid Benghazi Clip To Sway Election

Left leaning media bias is nothing new to those who are of the investigative mindset. But this example is a little more than having a 5-to-1 ratio of those that oppose the 2nd Amendment to those that support it. It is done to sway elections.

And I often hear about how horribly biased Fox News is. I will take a right leaning bias as compared to CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and the like — any day!

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson said in a Fox News appearance that her former CBS News bosses purposely hid a clip of President Obama refusing to call the Benghazi attacks an act of terrorism in order to help him get re-elected.

Mr. Obama told Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” the Sunday after the attack, “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved. But obviously, it was an attack on Americans.”

The clip didn’t air, though the transcript with that portion was sent to “CBS Evening News” staff, Ms. Attkisson told Fox.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, took Mr. Obama to task during a presidential debate for his failure to call the attack an act of terror for 14 days — a perfect, and missed, opportunity for CBS to air the clip, Ms. Attkisson said.

“That exchange, I believe, should have been pulled out immediately after the debate, which would have been very newsy at the time,” she said. “It was exclusive to CBS. It would have, it appears to me, proven Romney’s point against Obama. But that clip was kept secret.”

Ms. Attkisson said she was covering Benghazi at the time, yet no one at CBS advised her to use that clip from Mr. Obama as part of her coverage. Instead, she was directed to use other clips that showed Mr. Obama suggesting he had called the attack an act of terror from the very beginning, she said.

“And it was only right before the election that somebody kind of leaked out the transcript to others of us at CBS and we were really shocked,” Ms. Attkisson said during the interview. “We felt that … something very unethical had been done.”….

…Read more…