Connect with us

Media

NYT: Let bygones be bygones, as long as it’s Clinton and Uranium One

Published

on

New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker thinks it’s wrong for President Trump to ask the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One scandal. He thinks it’s okay to let bygones be bygones, as long as they are committed by Democrats.

Look at the quotes he included in his latest piece “Trump shatters longstanding norms by pressing for Clinton investigation.”

From Karen Dunn, one of the Obama White House lawyers and a Clinton adviser: “This is exactly what he said he would do: use taxpayer resources to pursue political rivals.” From former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon: “It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”

Trump Shatters Longstanding Norms by Pressing for Clinton Investigation | Peter Baker, New York Times

The request alone was enough to trigger a political backlash, as critics of Mr. Trump quickly decried what they called “banana republic” politics of retribution, akin to autocratic backwater nations where election losers are jailed by winners. The issue will almost certainly energize what was already shaping up to be a contentious hearing scheduled for Tuesday morning, when Mr. Sessions is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

He buried the lede of the substance of the Justice Department’s review many paragraphs down. In July, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to the Justice Department asking them to look further into Uranium One (Baker doesn’t mention the timing here, only Trump’s tweets about it). In late September, the Judiciary Committee again requested the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate Uranium One, since that investigation appears “to be outside the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.”

Finally, Baker closed the case all by himself.

Donors related to Uranium One and another company it acquired contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Russian bank for a speech. But there is no evidence that Mrs. Clinton participated in the government approval of the deal, and her aides have noted that other agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signed off on it as well. The company’s actual share of American uranium production has been 2 percent; the real benefit for Russia was securing far greater supplies of uranium from Kazakhstan.

Nothing to see here. Move along, because “there is no evidence.” That doesn’t mean “no evidence has been found,” or “investigators have turned up no evidence.” Baker is asserting that no evidence exists, therefore, no investigation is necessary.

Thank you to the New York Times for closing the case.

With Democrats in office, it’s okay for the Justice Department to help craft deals to funnel settlement slush fund money to liberal causes and away from conservatives. It’s okay for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch to meet with Bill Clinton in a hush-hush private-plane on the tarmac confab just days before then-FBI Director James Comey recommended no prosecution for Hillary. It’s okay for the Obama White House to exert political pressure to end the Clinton email investigation before the election. It’s okay for the FBI to continue investigating Donald Trump’s Russia connections, paying the same operative used by Fusion GPS to compile the “Trump dossier,” and use secret FISA wiretaps against targets.

It’s okay for those FISA warrants and investigations to become the foundation of Robert Mueller’s cases against George Pappadopoulos, Carter Page and Robert Manafort. It’s okay for Mueller to strong-arm those indicted individuals (convicted, in Pappadopoulos’ case) in order to move further into President Trump’s inner circle. It’s okay to use Wikileaks-obtained documents to force release of White House communications, against the advice of White House counsel Don McGahn, to further the Russia investigation.

And it’s okay with the New York Times to continue the Trump-Russia collusion investigation despite the fact that no evidence of collusion has turned up yet (at least not leaked to the public yet, and we know if it existed, it would be leaked).

But when it comes to things that Hillary did and got away with (so far), it’s called “weaponizing” the Justice Department to revisit those things when the House Judiciary Committee has requested it.

It’s so nice to let bygones be bygones, when you’re an unabashed liberal pretending to be impartial.

Further reading

Goodlatte & Judiciary Republicans Renew Call for Second Special Counsel to Address Issues Outside the Scope of Mueller’s Investigation | U.S. House of Representatives

https://goodlatte.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=978Recently, we wrote to you to request responses to those and other unanswered questions pertaining to the Clinton investigation. However, as the most recent Comey revelations make clear, ignoring this problem will not make it go away. Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?

Jeff Sessions considers investigating Hillary Clinton, others involved in Uranium One deal

http://noqreport.com/2017/11/13/jeff-sessions-considers-investigating-hillary-clinton-others-involved-uranium-one-deal/Update: President Trump Tweeted a teaser last night. Some are betting on it being and announcement about the investigation. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/930320191699017730 https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/930330913094885376 https://twitter.com/libbybakalar/status/930329180599861249 Original Story Reports out of DC indicate Attorney General Jeff Sessions is weighing the options for investigating the Obama-era Uranium One deal that gave a Russian-owned company partial control over our nuclear energy…

Democrats

Project Veritas stings Claire McCaskill, but also exposes a sad truth about American politics

Published

on

Project Veritas stings Claire McCaskill but also exposes a sad truth about American politics

Project Veritas, the undercover journalists who bring us a steady flow of videos revealing leftist hypocrisies and scandals, was able to get some good dirt on Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. She’s all in for just about every bit of gun control legislation that can make it to the floor, a stance that won’t sit well in right-leaning Missouri.

But there’s something else revealed in this and past videos by Project Veritas. There are things that certain politicians simply cannot say which promotes the atmosphere of lies and subterfuge that plague our nation’s capital. She’s a “moderate” Democrat when speaking to her constituents, a play that’s necessary in a red state. The same is true for blue state Republicans who can’t come out and say they want to ban abortions or other right-wing priorities because the general sentiment in these states oppose those views.

What we’ve seen is that the youthful, energetic, passionate people who make up the campaign staff and volunteers are often much further to the left than the candidates they support. The same is almost certainly true for Republican campaign staff and volunteers who are likely more conservative than their candidate. What does this really tell us?

Most politicians must cater to the middle while they’re driven by the ideological fringe. This creates a contradiction that cannot be reconciled in today’s two-party political atmosphere.

Is there a solution? Yes. We’ll discuss that after the election. In the meantime, we’ll support the push to keep majorities for Republicans in the House and Senate.

If there’s a red state Democrat that deserves to be moved out of office, it’s Claire McCaskill. The question is whether Missourians will see McCaskill as the centrist she wants them to see or the far-left activists she really is.

Continue Reading

Media

There’s one glaring difference between 60 Minutes’ interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Published

on

Theres one glaring difference between 60 Minutes interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Anyone who expected the 60 Minutes interview with President Trump to be anything like their interviews with his predecessor was likely very disappointed. Mainstream media might pretend like they treated the two Presidents the same, but the differences in interviews on 60 Minutes may be the most stark evidence their claim on being unbiased is an absolute lie.

Here’s a portion of the interview with President Trump, which aired tonight:

“Journalist” Lesley Stahl spoke over the President multiple times. If you watch the entire interview, you’ll see that this happened throughout. She would ask a question, most of which were attempts at “gotcha” responses, then would interrupt the President any time he didn’t give the answer she was wanting.

Now, compare that to the interview in the early days of the Obama administration.

Steve Kroft was the embodiment of politeness and civility. He sat aptly silent as President Obama gave his answers.

Mainstream media has given up on pretending they don’t hate President Trump. It no longer behooves him to do these interviews, giving higher ratings to leftist media outlets that simply don’t deserve it.

Continue Reading

Media

NBC’s ‘mistake’ and the devious methodology of snippet propaganda

Published

on

NBCs mistake and the devious methodology of snippet propaganda

Truth is in the eye of the bewildered.

That is the unofficial motto of mainstream media. They’ll never admit it, not even to themselves in many cases, but every headline, opening paragraph, and bit of information packed into their reports are designed with slant in mind. It’s done on both sides, but the prevalence of leftism in the biggest media outlets creates a tremendous imbalance of bias.

All of this can be boiled down to something I like to call “snippet propaganda.” In every individual component, or snippet, of a news report or commentary, there are various attempts to spin the receiver (viewer, reader, or listener) in one direction or another.

Overtly, they tell us what to think about. Subtly, they tell us how to think about it.

Our always-connected, high-speed society is comprised of millions of individuals who rarely spend the time necessary on any one topic to gain true understanding. They see or hear the parts they want to ingest and then draw conclusions from it.

This is magnified by social media. I’ve had literally thousands of experiences where comments on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, or the comment sections of my sites themselves react to a single, misunderstood element of what I post. In all of these cases it’s clear the comment was made by someone who didn’t actually read the article. They were just replying to the sentence or paragraph that was easily accessible.

That can be a huge annoyance to those of us who spend hours a day writing, all the while knowing we’re going to be judged on a headline or descriptive paragraph. Debates get started over issues that are covered in the article, but when people are only reading the snippet, they have no idea they’re arguing the wrong point altogether.

Mainstream media takes advantage of this. They know the masses will see a headline and description on social media and spread the information about it based on their worldviews with the assumption that the actual news report itself backs it up even if they don’t take the time to read it.

Let’s look at a story from left-wing ThinkProgress.

Portland police investigating far-right skirmishes with leftist protesters

https://thinkprogress.org/portland-police-investigating-far-right-violence-in-skirmishes-with-leftist-protestors-99c939cb20f7/Members of the far-right Patriot Prayer group and the white nationalist Proud Boys group clashed with Antifa demonstrators in Portland Saturday evening, resulting in several skirmishes during what has turned out to be a weekend of right-wing violence on both coasts.

The altercations began Saturday afternoon, when the far-right groups organized a “Flash March for Law and Order” under the leadership of Joey Gibson, a political activist and former Republican candidate for Senate in Washington.

Every aspect of this story, from headline to snippet to the body of the story itself, is tilted to the left with the intention of harnessing the rage leftists feel towards far-right organizations. Here’s the problem. The vast majority of protesters were Antifa. The vast majority of “skirmishes,” as the publication put it, were started by Antifa. Even most mainstream media outlets covered these stories with the fair and indisputable assertion that Antifa was the source.

News outlets post an inflammatory headline with a damning snippet as the description. The people react. In many cases the reality isn’t nearly as outrageous as the headline and snippet would suggest, but it’s enough to get comments, likes, and shares. Today’s news serves us Big Macs because we can grab them quickly, easily, and inexpensively. Yet for some reason, the people then wonder why they’re not satisfied with their news meal.

Let’s look at a different example, this time from right-wing Breitbart.

Democratic Candidate Stacey Abrams: ‘Undocumented’ Immigrants Are Part of the ‘Blue Wave’

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/12/democratic-candidate-stacey-abrams-undocumented-immigrants-are-part-of-the-blue-wave/The “blue wave” — allegedly including illegal aliens — refers to the voters that Democratic candidates across the country are hoping will carry them to victory in the 2018 midterm elections.

Abrams’ comments are not entirely unfounded though, considering that earlier this week, an internal audit revealed that the California Department of Motor Vehicles had illegally registered roughly 1,500 individuals to vote, included non-citizens.

As much as I oppose illegal immigration and voter fraud, that was not what Abrams was suggesting. Breitbart spun her comments to tap into an anger many on the right feel towards illegal immigration, especially if it’s used as a tool by Democrats to get elected. Here’s the actual quote by Abrams:

“The thing of it is, the blue wave is African American. It’s white, it’s Latino, it’s Asian-Pacific Islander, it is disabled, it is differently-abled, it is LGBTQ, it is law enforcement, it is veterans,” she said. “It is made up of those who’ve been told that they are not worthy of being here. It is comprised of those who are documented and undocumented.”

She isn’t referring to illegal immigrants voting. Yes, as Breitbart asserts, the “blue wave” is driven by voters, but in context it’s clear that Abrams is discussing the sentiment of the people who are fueling the blue wave. She’s not saying that illegal immigrants are going to be voting her into office.

What’s good for the goose shouldn’t always be considered good for the gander. We unabashedly defend conservatism, federalism, and originalism, but we do so knowing we have the right ideas. There’s no need to use propaganda techniques. We have the truth on our side. It behooves right-leaning news outlets to tell stories accurately and honestly.

Now, onto the story that riled up the President.

Shortly after backlash from the right against NBC for misrepresenting the President of the United States, they issued a correction.

This final technique of snippet propaganda is arguably the most egregious. It’s when media outlets willfully misrepresent their political foes, then issue a “correction.” The problem is the original story has already reached the masses. How many of them will see the correction? How many people are walking around today claiming the President of the United States gave kudos to a man who fought to keep slavery.

This was blatant and intentional. It was an act likely committed by a very small number of people at NBC, but it was done with the intention of spreading a lie. Once the lie spread and the backlash began, those with more journalistic integrity issued the correction, but at that point the damage was done. The mainstream media and leftist narrative that the President is a racist was hammered home. The correction only served to justify the damage done without actually mitigating it.

The President and right-leaning media will mitigate the damage by highlighting the correction, but there will still be a large number of people who never hear the truth.

Shame on you, NBC.

This methodology may not be isolated to the left, but their skill in manipulating public sentiment is arguably the biggest reason the progressive movement continues to exist. It’s repugnant, which is why conservative media must expand.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report