Connect with us

Everything

‘Wolf!’ the New York Times cried

Published

on

I’m no apologist for President Trump. But the New York Times has put itself, once again, in a horrible position in reporting an anonymously-sourced story about a meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and a Kremlin-connected lawyer.

This isn’t the first time they Gray Lady has cried “Wolf!”

Just last week, the NYT and AP corrected their previous and widely-reported claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election in an attempt to help Donald Trump’s candidacy.

In February, the NYT claimed that phone records and “intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election.”

James Comey, under oath, directly refuted the NYT story. And the NYT reported on itself, without issuing a correction.

Answering a question about the Times article during an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Comey said that “in the main, it was not true.”

Instead of engaging in self-examination, the very reporters who gathered the anonymously-sourced stories pressed to know exactly what was wrong with their initial report. Comey did not, and could not without violating the FBI’s security and his own disclosure agreements, answer that.

But “in the main, it was not true” doesn’t mean, “it’s true with some problems.” It means it’s false, with some elements of truth.

The NYT continues to report in this manner: That it’s got the story mostly true. Yet time after time, their reports end up as “nothing-burgers” or embarrassing falsehoods promulgated by people with a political agenda.

It would seem to emerge (as we all know) that the NYT itself has a political agenda. They want to take down President Trump. The main stream media’s echo chamber of the NYT, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are hell-bent for leather to see Trump fall.

And the harder they try, the less credibility they have.

They keep crying “Wolf!” over and over when there’s no wolf there. In this latest report, what version of events should we believe? The hint may be in the small details. Today, the NYT, in a follow-up story to the original report, noted a correction.

Correction: July 9, 2017

An earlier version of this article misquoted a statement by Donald Trump Jr. about a meeting with a Russian lawyer. He said the meeting mostly focused on the topic of adoption, which “was not a campaign issue.” He did not say it was a campaign issue.

Trump, Jr. had a 20-minute meeting with a Russian lawyer, who, according to the person who set up the meeting and Trump, Jr. himself, offered to share “damaging information on Mrs. Clinton,” specifically information that Russians were helping to fund her campaign. Trump Jr. claims that was a pretext for the meeting to discuss issues dealing with adoption.

In fact, the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, is well-known for her work opposing the Magnitsky Act, which Congress passed in late 2015 to punish the Russians for the death of a Russian journalist. Trump, Jr.’s recounting of the meeting lines up with that fact. The NYT put words in his mouth, which they had to correct.

That’s really the entire point of all the “Wolf!” crying. The NYT and other media have presented, and continue to present counterfactual conditional claims of what was not said, or what was not assumed to be true. These types of  “if she did discuss the Clinton campaign, it would be collusion” are nothing more than rank speculation, and the media builds upon these speculations in an ever-more-fragile logic tree of “if-thens.”

Any one of those “if-thens” tends to collapse their arguments, but instead of correcting course, they replace one tenuous argument for another. “If Comey lied, then…” when Comey became the media’s hero until he contradicted their story.

It’s fairly obvious to anyone that the NYT and its media comrades have a pre-determined narrative. They want us to believe that there was collusion. They want us to believe there is a wolf. The problem they’ve created is that if a wolf really does show up, nobody is going to believe them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Border Patrol arrests 32 at San Diego demonstration

Published

on

Border Patrol arrests 32 at San Diego demonstration

SAN DIEGO (AP) — U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested 32 people at a demonstration Monday that was organized by a Quaker group on the border with Mexico, authorities said. Demonstrators were calling for an end to detaining and deporting immigrants and showing support for migrants in a caravan of Central American asylum seekers.

A photographer for The Associated Press saw about a dozen people being handcuffed after they were told by agents to back away from a wall that the Border Patrol calls “an enforcement zone.” The American Friends Service Committee, which organized the demonstration, said 30 people were stopped by agents in riot gear and taken into custody while they tried to move forward to offer a ceremonial blessing near the wall.

Border Patrol spokesman Theron Francisco said 31 people were arrested for trespassing and one was arrested for assaulting an officer.

More than 300 people, many the leaders of churches, mosques, synagogues and indigenous communities, participated in the demonstration at San Diego’s Border Field State Park, which borders Tijuana, Mexico.

The rally held on a beach divided by the border wall was the second confrontation for Border Patrol agents since a caravan of more than 6,000 migrants, predominantly Hondurans, reached Tijuana last month. A confrontation with rock-throwers from Mexico led to U.S. agents firing tear gas into Mexico on Nov. 25 and a five-hour closure of the nation’s busiest border crossing.

Thousands of migrants are living in crowded tent cities in Tijuana after undertaking a grueling journey from Central America to the U.S. border. Many face waiting weeks or months in Mexico while they apply for asylum. The U.S. is processing up to about 100 claims a day at the San Diego crossing, which is creating a backlog.

The demonstration Monday was meant to launch a national week of action called “Love Knows No Borders: A moral call for migrant justice,” which falls between Human Rights Day on Monday, and International Migrants’ Day on Dec. 18, the group said.

“Showing up to welcome and bless children, mothers and fathers seeking asylum from very difficult and dehumanizing circumstances is the right and humane thing to do,” said Bishop Minerva G. Carcano, from the San Francisco Area United Methodist Church. “How we act in these moments determines who we will become as a nation.”

The group also is calling on Congress to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Latest Godzilla: King of Monsters trailer may mean it’s actually getting released next year

Published

on

Latest Godzilla King of Monsters trailer may mean its actually getting released next year

One of next year’s early blockbusters will be Godzilla: King of the Monsters. It is scheduled for May 31 after being pushed repeatedly to position it against the competition. This newest release date will give Marvel’s Avengers: End Game plenty of time to eat up audience dollars before passing the baton.

Originally slated for this year, executives kept looking for the best window for their second installment of what they hope to be a franchise similar to the successful Planet of the Apes reboot. The first installment of Godzilla in 2014 was widely seen as the first legitimate blockbuster featuring the Japanese monster after a handful of clunky attempts. It did well with a strong cast (including Bryan Cranston) and chalked up over $500 million at the worldwide box office against 75% on Rotten Tomatoes.

This installment features Millie Bobby Brown who has experience fighting demonic beasts in Netflix Stranger Things.

My only concern is that they seem to be putting out all the major bad monsters in this one – Mothra, Rodan, and King Ghidorah. It lends to the notion that this will be limited to a trilogy with the climax being Godzilla vs. Kong, crossing over the giant ape’s own franchise.

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Brett Kavanaugh punts on Planned Parenthood cases, leaving conservatives baffled

Published

on

Brett Kavanaugh punts on Planned Parenthood cases leaving conservatives baffled

Conservatives were cheering when Justice Brett Kavanaugh was finally confirmed after a tumultuous process that polarized the nation. Leftists argued that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be the end for women’s rights to make choices about abortions, among other things, even before the confirmation turned into a high school sexual assault circus.

Instead of hearing arguments in his first major abortion-related case since taking the bench, Kavanaugh sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the four left-leaning Supreme Court Justices to decline to review it. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch all wanted to hear the case, but it takes four.

According to Thomas, the move was political.

Kavanaugh, Roberts, side with liberal judges on Planned Parenthood case

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-planned-parenthood-defunding-case-845056?lIn February, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that Kansas was wrong to to end Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding, writing that states can’t cut off funding for reasons “unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the healthcare it provides.” Four other appeals courts have ruled that Medicaid patients have the right to access the provider of their choice.

But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that states do have the right to terminate a provider’s Medicaid contract and that residents cannot challenge that decision.

The Supreme Court’s action Monday allows the split decisions to stand in different federal circuits. Thomas, in his dissent, wrote that the Supreme Court should have taken the cases to resolve conflicting findings from lower courts.

“Because of this Court’s inaction, patients in different States — even patients with the same providers — have different rights to challenge their State’s provider decisions,” Thomas wrote.

My Take

Thomas is right. This is the type of case that is ideal for the Supreme Court to resolve the rights of individuals, who are currently bound by different laws in different states. The majority of the time, this isn’t a bad thing. States can and should act differently from one another. However, when it comes to a person’s right to challenge a federal funding, which Medicaid is in part, there needs to be clear direction from the Supreme Court.

As Thomas noted, the reasons for punting on this issue were clear.

“So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion,” Thomas wrote.

This case had nothing to do with abortion, at least not directly. It was about the rights of the people to challenge how their tax dollars were spent, a fundamental right that drills down to the core of our republic. The mere mention of Planned Parenthood, even outside of the abortion issue, was enough to spook Justice Kavanaugh. He joins Chief Justice Roberts and Republicans on Capitol Hill who are so terrified of Planned Parenthood, they refuse to address the issue even at its most basic level.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report