Stephanopoulos Claims Clinton Supporters Didn’t Riot After 2016 Election

After the Daily Caller clip, I delve deeper into these misconception about the 2016 and 2020 election with Larry Elder’s Sacramento Bee interview when he was running for governor. (That file can be found HERE)

DAILY CALLER:

“George Stephanopoulos suggested Sunday that even though Hillary Clinton supporters did not recognize the 2016 election as legitimate, they did not take the ‘same action’ as Trump supporters after the 2020 election.

[….]

Stephanopoulos interjected that Hillary Clinton supporters ‘did not take the same action.’ Police arrested more than 200 rioters in Washington, D.C., in January 2017 as riots ensued immediately after President Trump’s swearing in ceremony. Four businesses underwent “significant damage” due to vandalism, six police officers sustained minor injuries, and one limousine was torched on Inauguration Day, NBC News reported at the time.

Ben Shapiro: President Empathy Doesn’t Actually Give A Damn

President Biden tells Americans in Afghanistan they’re supposed to rely on the mercy of the Taliban; America’s enemies accelerate their aggressive behavior; and the hard Left signals that conservatives are the real Taliban.

  • 00:00 – Conditions in Afghanistan continue to deteriorate
  • 16:59 – Biden won’t answer hard questions
  • 23:52 – NATO says they will rely on the Taliban
  • 37:37 – General Mark Milley needs a new job
  • 43:59 – Nancy Pelosi defends Joe Biden

Joe Biden’s Big Lie (Combo: A & G | Chris Christie | Hugh Hewitt)

I was up early this morning and had had some idea of this upload… so here it is in the time allotted before work. (See previous slam by LARRY ELDER as well as ARMSTRONG and GETTY)

From THE FEDERALIST:

….Amid a barrage of “reporting” and commentary on the law—including outlandish and false statements from President Biden, who said it amounted to “Jim Crow in the 21st century” and called the law “sick” and “un-American”—it has been nearly impossible to find any straight news articles that describe, in simple and dispassionate terms, what the Georgia law actually does.

It would not be hard to write such a story if any news organizations cared to do so. As it happens, the Heritage Foundation has posted one of the few articles that simply describes what the law does in an effort to correct the false corporate media narrative that this is a “voter suppression” law.

Contrary to what has been reported by The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and many other corporate outlets, the Georgia law doesn’t contain any onerous voter ID requirements. It simply replaces a shoddy signature match system with a voter ID system, and provides that any Georgia resident can get a state ID for free if he doesn’t already have one (97 percent of registered voters in Georgia already do).

Also contrary to widespread reports, the law doesn’t eliminate drop-boxes for mail-in ballots. Such drop-boxes didn’t exist in Georgia prior to last year; they were an ad-hoc pandemic measure. The bill simply codified them into law, providing a certain number of drop-boxes for every county.

The law also doesn’t ban drinking water while waiting in line at the polls, it simply prohibits political groups from distributing food and water at polling places to prevent efforts to influence voters.

And on and on. In reality, Georgia’s voting law is a ho-hum tweaking of state voting laws. But in the phantasmagoria of corporate media, it’s the new Jim Crow. Major corporations have committed to this fantasy, publicly denouncing the law, intentionally mischaracterizing what it does, and in the case of Major League Baseball, which pulled its All-Star Game out of the state, taking concrete actions.

Other corporations have settled for issuing intentionally misleading statements. Delta and Coca-Cola, two of the largest employers in Georgia, came out against the law last week. Coca-Cola’s chief executive James Quincey said the new law “makes it harder for people to vote, not easier.” Delta’s chief executive, Ed Bastian, said more or less the same thing.

Both of them are wrong — and not as a matter of interpretation or rhetoric. They are factually, objectively wrong. The bill does not make it harder for anyone to vote. Period. Any assertions that it does make voting harder would be treated as lies or errors of fact in a reality-based media world.

But we don’t have a reality-based news media, so corporations feel no need to be reality-based. On Monday, United Airlines declared, “Legislation that infringes on the right to vote of fellow Americans is wrong.” Yet there is no such legislation, in Georgia or anywhere else. It is not real. Yet United—and Delta, and Coca-Cola, and many others—are asking us to believe that it is.….

Kristi Noem Speaks With George Stephanopoulos

Former Clintonista Stephanopoulos pushed the Democratic line, claiming there had been no evidence of widespread fraud. But Noem stopped him short (RED STATE).

“And that is not true,” Noem answered. “People have signed legal documents, affidavits, stating that they saw illegal activities and that is why we need to have this conversation in court. The New York Times itself has said there were clerical errors. … in Michigan we had computer glitches that turned Republican votes to Democrat votes. You look in Pennsylvania, dead people voted in Pennsylvania.” [….]

“So George, I don’t know how widespread it is. I don’t know if it will change the outcome of the election,” Noem admitted. “But why is everybody so scared just to have a fair election and find out? We gave Al Gore 37 days to run the process before we decided who was going to be president. Why would we not afford the 70.6 million Americans who voted for Trump the same consideration?”

Click graphic to go to video:

Impeachment Efforts Harm Intel Community/Whistleblower Laws

Amidst the latest attempt to remove President Trump, Larry discusses the circumstances of the whistleblower’s report to Congress over President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—in what was claimed to be diplomatic pressure to investigate Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in the country. Larry further delves into all the other failed attempts to unseat a duly elected president.

I have to think this is all choreographed… that the full script was written and the MSM is following it to the “T.” This second “whistle blower” was set to come out at this time and the media was suppose to run with it because they all thought Trump would still be obfuscating the details. EXCEPT, Trump fast-lined the call transcript and complaint to be released…. hence the responses to George Stephanopoulos on his Twitter:

TWITCHY notes Legal Insurrections take down of the latest revelation of a 2nd whistle blower:

LEGAL INSURRECTION continues it’s cogent thinking by noting that the “[w]eaponization of whistleblower laws is yet another breach of norms in an effort to unwind the 2016 election and manipulate the 2020 election.” Continuing LI notes failure after failure of the Left to oust Trump:

Circulating claims of Trump-Russian collusion prior to the 2016 election didn’t work.

Using foreign-supplied fake intelligence, from a British spy who utilized Russian sources, to obtain surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team didn’t work.

Intimidating Electoral College Electors to change their votes after the election didn’t work.

Having the Director of the FBI lie to, set up and try to entrap the president didn’t work.

Having that same FBI Director leak memos to the media to manufacture grounds for a Special Counsel didn’t work.

Trying to invoke the 25th Amendment to declare the president unable to perform the job didn’t work.

Two years of the Mueller Investigation didn’t work.

Three years of a permanent crisis news cycle meant to paralyze the administration didn’t work.

After all these failures to unwind the 2016 election, Democrats and the mainstream media are trying a new tactic: Create a Star Chamber “impeachment” process fueled by anonymous whistleblowers and selective leaks that is not so much designed to remove the president, though they would if they could, but to manipulate the 2020 election.

The first intelligence community whistleblower is not so much a whistleblower as a politically biased operative (according to the Inspector General) who gathered information from various sources, went to Adam Schiff’s office for guidance, then filed a so-called Whistleblower Complaint that almost certainly was drafted by a team of lawyers. WhistleBlower No. 1, because he or she filed the claim as a whistleblower, is entitled to anonymity, there will not be the type of cross-examination and investigation of the whistleblower’s background and information that was so critical when Democrats rolled out a series of accusers against Brett Kavanaugh.

With Whistleblower No. 1 failing to fulfill the mission, there was a leak to the NY Times of a potential Whistleblower No. 2. That’s how this is going to work, there will be leaks to the media to frame the public narrative just like regarding supposed Russian-collusion.

That potential Whistleblower No. 2 is not actually a whistleblower, he or she is reportedly a witness already interviewed as part of the first Whistleblower Complaint. Whistleblower No. 2 is not blowing the whistle on anything.

[….]

At the same time that evidence is being funneled through whistleblower secrecy, Democrats are intent on shutting Republican’s out of the investigative process by conducting a non-impeachment impeachment investigation……

(Video added by RPT)

…..There has been no formal vote authorizing an impeachment investigation, so Republicans are without procedural mechanisms to fully participate in the process and to use congressional powers to conduct their own investigation.

Expect Schiff and team to leak like sieves, but only the information they gather in secret that they think helps them.

This has all the makings of a congressional Star Chamber of secret “whistleblowers” and Democrat leaks meant to manipulate both the public perception of the need for impeachment and the 2020 election.

And to end, this is a great “Tweet Storm” by Fred Fleitz:

1/ As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released… (Complaint PDF)

2/ This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls.

3/ It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.

4/ The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?

5/ It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?

6/ My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?

7/ This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.

8/ Worst of all, this IC officer — and probably others — have blatantly crossed the line into policy. This violates a core responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.

9/ This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.

Rand Paul On Donald Trump’s “Sh**Hole” Comments

(Dr. Paul looks good after being attacked by a crazed Leftist that broke six of his ribs.)

BREITBART has more:

Sen. David Purdue (R-GA), who was at the meeting, told ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos that Durbin’s account of events was a “gross misrepresentation,” adding that it was “not the first time we’ve had a gross misrepresentation by that individual.”

Purdue elaborated:

  • The gross misrepresentation was that language was used in there that was not used, and also that the tone of that meeting was not contributory and not constructive. In 2013, Senator Durbin also made the same accusation against a Republican leader in a meeting with President Obama, and said that he chewed out the president, and was so disrepsectful to President Obama we couldn’t even have the meeting. That’s what he said in 2013. Later that day, the president’s own press secretary came out and said, and I quote: “It did not happen.” This is about a gross misrepresentation. It’s not the first time.

Kirsten Powers Talks to Prager About Her Book, “The Silencing”

Kirsten Powers has written an important new book entitled: “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” In the interview are a couple examples given of ingrained bias. I excluded discussion of her recent column dealing with George Stephanopoulos, but THAT article can be found here.

Another great book by this evolving Christian where truth is winning out. See my previous “expose” of her faith:

From the Rational to the Relational ~ Kirsten Powers and Holly Ordway

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/

Here is the end of Kirstan’s article of George Stephanopoulos:

…While Stephanopoulos might be the piñata of the week, singling him out misses the point. Simpson is harkening back to an era of journalism that sadly no longer exists. After all, we have a mainstream news media that took a Democratic Party talking point — “the war on women” — and reported it as if it’s breaking news.

Presuming guilt among Republicans and goodness among Democrats is so reflexive and rewarded in today’s mainstream media culture, it’s not that hard to see how Stephanopoulos truly would not have understood he had an egregious conflict of interest as he faced down Schweizer. Like a fish doesn’t notice the water, today’s mainstream journalists are impervious to their bias in favor of Democratic candidates or liberal issues. They believe they are being objective because they have mistaken their ideological belief system for truth. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noted repeatedly, “The facts have a liberal bias.

This view has fertile ground in which to flourish, as the ideological and intellectual diversity of the nation’s newsrooms decreases. Per The Atlantic, “Among journalists who align with one of the two major parties, four in five said they’re Democrats.” While many of these people are able to account for their bias, too many aren’t. A friend recently recalled to me watching journalists at a mainstream media outlet erupt in cheers as election returns came in favoring President Obama. It must have been lonely for the few Republicans: According to an Indiana University survey, in 1971, almost 26% of reporters were Republican. Today, it’s 7%.

Expect the facts to keep getting more liberal.

…read it all…

For more on this topic, see Deck O’ Race Cards (PJTV), and Dennis Prager.

Eleven Strange Coincidences From The Clinton Foundation ~ Peter Schweizer

Via HotAir:

The big takeaway for ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in his interview with author Peter Schweizer was that the book Clinton Cash had no “smoking gun” on Hillary Clinton or the Clinton Foundation. ABC News did its own investigation of the allegations in Schweizer’s book, but Stephanopoulos argued that Schweizer didn’t prove a connection between payments and Hillary’s actions as Secretary of State:

A recent report in The New York Times, based on claims made in “Clinton Cash,” raised questions about donations made to the Clinton Foundation that coincided with the approval of aRussian uranium deal during her tenure at the State Department. The undersecretary who worked on the deal, however, has said that Clinton was not involved in the sale.

Schweizer told Stephanopoulos that the evidence comes from the pattern of behavior:

Schweizer said he does not have “direct evidence” that Clinton intervened on the uranium deal, but added that “this is part of the broader pattern” that he said should still be investigated.

“The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior,” he said, later adding, “You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”

Later, on Fox News Sunday, Schweizer notes eleven particular “coincidences” involving Bill Clinton and the direct compensation foreign interests could make to the Clintons (via National Review)

…read it all…

George Stephanopoulos shows his bias in regards to even his introductions of people

Take note that when George Stephanopoulos introduces people at the round table, he introduces Van Jones with professional job characteristics and mention his book… nothing is mentioned about his radical liberalism (Marxist leanings), or the like. When he introduces Ann Coulter, she is simply noted as a “conservative columnist, author.” She clerked for a -known judge, authored 8-books, etc. Why not mention her “Demonic” book (her most recent)? Why not denote Van Jones bio with “liberal” like Ann is a “conservative”?

video platform video management video solutions video player