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)
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
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:
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:
And to end, this is a great “Tweet Storm” by Fred Fleitz:
(Dr. Paul looks good after being attacked by a crazed Leftist that broke six of his ribs.)
BREITBART has more:
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:
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.
For more on this topic, see “Deck O’ Race Cards (PJTV), and Dennis Prager.“
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.”
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”?