Tag: Donald Trump

More Buzzfeed B.S.

The “failing pile of garbage” Buzzfeed, who was the first to publish Christopher Steele’s bogus dossier, is out with the latest anti-Trump “bombshell” so scandalous that it’ll take an entire three days before the media forgets about it.

To quote the key claims from the piece, authored by Anthony Cormier and Jason Leopold:

President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.

Trump also supported a plan, set up by Cohen, to visit Russia during the presidential campaign, in order to personally meet President Vladimir Putin and jump-start the tower negotiations. “Make it happen,” the sources said Trump told Cohen.

The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.

A number of issues are immediately apparent, including the facts that:

  1. All sources are anonymous – and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There are no documents provided either, we’re simply relying on two anonymous “federal law enforcement officials.”
  2. Trump allegedly asked Cohen to lie for him after Cohen had publicly turned on Trump. How would that make any sense?
  3. Trump’s Trump Tower project in Russia never materialized, and conducting business in Russia is not a crime.
  4. Michael Cohen claims to have lied for Trump in the past out of “blind loyalty,” not because he was directed to lie. Given Cohen’s indictments, if Trump actually did direct him to lie, it would be in his best interest to say as much. 

And most importantly, the Special Counsel is disputing the report.

Prior to the Mueller spokesperson disputing the report, there were plenty of other red flags journalists should’ve considered. 

One of the Authors Has History of Bogus Reporting

The second “reporter” with a byline on Buzzfeed’s article, Jason Leopold, really ain’t all that great at his job. Here’s some reporting of his from 2006, in which he predicted that Karl Rove was just 24-hours away from being indicted on charges of perjury and lying to reporters:

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove. During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Would you believe that all of Leopold’s sources for his bogus story were anonymous too?

In 2002,  the far-left Salon.com removed a story of Leopold’s, accusing him of plagiarism and claiming that he “distributed an account of events” that was “riddled with inaccuracies and misrepresentations.”

The Duo Hasn’t (Or Maybe Has!) Seen the Evidence

Appearing on CNN, Cormier admitted that he hadn’t actually seen the underlying evidence for his report. When asked by host Alisyn Camerota if he’d seen the evidence, Cornier replied that ““No, I’ve not seen it personally” but assured us that “the folks we have talked to — two officials we have spoken to are full, 100 percent read into that aspect of the Special Counsel’s investigation.” In other words, no he hasn’t seen the evidence, but people we don’t know the names of assured him that they’re not liars.

According to Leopold however, he actually has seen the evidence, telling MSNBC that “We have seen documents. We have been briefed on documents. We are very confident in our reporting.” If he’s speaking of a “we,” then he must be speaking of Cormier, who contradicted him.

In hindsight, it probably isn’t surprising that Buzzfeed, the  website that has brought us such enlightening articles including (but not limited to) “23 Things You Need If You’re Obsessed With Llamas,” “12 Reasons Why Sam The Car With Eyebrows Should Be Your New Favorite Cat,” and “13 Awesome Celebrity #TBT Photos You Might Have Missed This Week” hasn’t been successful in  pivoting towards being a respected news outlet.

I suppose we should stay tuned for when they report on the 10,000th “final nail” in Trump’s coffin.

 

Trump Plans Second North Korean Summit with Kim Jong Un in February

The White House has announced that President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will meet again in February for nuclear talks.

In a statement today, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said, “President Donald J. Trump met with Kim Yong Chol for an hour and half, to discuss denuclearization and a second summit, which will take place near the end of February. The President looks forward to meeting with Chairman Kim at a place to be announced at a later date.”

**LISTEN: Dan discusses the astonishing new revelations about the spying scheme on the Trump team*

It’s reported that Chol brought Trump a letter from Kim Jong Un. Prior to their meeting, Sanders said the two would “discuss relations between the two countries and continued progress on North Korea’s final, fully verified denuclearization.”

Trump’s meeting with Chol occurred after the North Korean envoy met with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. special envoy for North Korea, Stephen Biegun in downtown D.C.

 

White House Blasts Pelosi’s Leak Allegation as a “Flat Out Lie”

A White House official slammed Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) claims that President Trump “leaked” information about a Democratic congressional trip to Afghanistan, according to Fox News.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said the President’s last minute announcement to cancel the military aircraft for the congressional delegation, “significantly increased the danger to the delegation and to the troops, security, and other officials supporting the trip.”

In a letter to Pelosi yesterday, the President stated he postponed the trip due to the government shutdown, however, “if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.”

**Listen: Dan discusses the astonishing new revelations about the spying scheme on the Trump Team*

According to Hammill, the congressional delegation had planned to fly commercially, but the President’s public statement forced them to postpone the trip.

A White House official told Fox News, the leak allegations were “a flat out lie.”

“When the Speaker of the House and about 20 others from Capitol Hill decide to book their own commercial flights to Afghanistan, the world is going to find out,” the official said. “The idea we would leak anything that would put the safety and security of any American at risk is a flat out lie.”

Another White House official told the outlet the leak allegations were “asinine.”

In his letter to Pelosi yesterday, the President called her trip a “public relations” event and stated, “In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate.”

“Due to the Shutdown, I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan has been postponed,” he wrote. “We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the Shutdown is over. In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate,” he continued. “I also feel that, during this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown. Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.”

 

Latino Job Approval of Trump SURGES in Midst of Govt Shutdown Over Border Wall Funding

Latino job approval of President Trump has increased by 20 percent since early December–a noteworthy jump considering the current government shutdown over funding for a wall on the southern border.

A new PBS Newshour, NPR and Marist poll finds that 51 percent of Latino adults “strongly approve” or  “approve” of the job President Trump is doing–up from 31 percent in December.

Townhall.com reports:

The poll was taken from January 10-13, 2019 and asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? [And, would you say you strongly approve/disapprove of the job he is doing or just approve/disapprove?]”

Twenty-nine percent of Latinos responded “strongly approve,” with another 22 percent who “approve.” The combined number puts his approval at 51 percent. Nearly half, 41 percent, “strongly disapprove.” 

For the full story, click HERE.

 

Rand Paul Proposes Moving SOTU to Senate, Bypassing Pelosi

Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) is suggesting moving the President’s State of the Union Address from the House of Representatives to the Senate.

The Senator tweeted yesterday, “Senator McConnell is in charge of the Senate. If Mrs. Pelosi refuses to allow the president to deliver the State of the Union in the House, I propose we move it to the Senate and make it happen!”

On Wednesday, Pelosi sent a letter to President Trump suggesting he postpone the State of the Union address until the government shutdown is over due to security concerns.

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th,” she wrote.

Despite the fact that both Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security stated they are well equipped and prepared to handle the State of the Union Address,  Pelosi told reporters she “didn’t care.”

“I don’t care what they said,” said Pelosi when told by a reporter that Secret Service stated they were prepared to secure the Congressional event.

Trump Postpones Pelosi’s “Public Relations” Foreign Trip in Light of Govt Shutdown

President Trump has denied Speaker of House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) an aircraft for her upcoming foreign trip, writing to the congresswoman that her “public relations” travel has been postponed due to the government shutdown, according to Fox News.

Sources told Fox News that Pelosi’s congressional delegation military aircraft was scheduled to leave at 3 p.m. ET today, with the President canceling the plane just “as she was about to leave for her overseas trip.”

In what the outlet calls a “stinging and curt” letter, the President wrote:

“Due to the Shutdown, I am sorry to inform you that your trip to Brussels, Egypt, and Afghanistan has been postponed. We will reschedule this seven-day excursion when the Shutdown is over. In light of the 800,000 great American workers not receiving pay, I am sure you would agree that postponing this public relations event is totally appropriate. I also feel that, during this period, it would be better if you were in Washington negotiating with me and joining the Strong Border Security movement to end the Shutdown. Obviously, if you would like to make your journey by flying commercial, that would certainly be your prerogative.”

This is a developing story, please check back for more details.

Former Top FBI Official Revealed as Subject of Criminal Leak Investigation

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker has been under investigation for leaking to the media, according to a letter from House Republicans.

The letter, from Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) asks U.S. Attorney John Durham for an update on his investigation into Baker’s media leaks.

It was revealed that the former top attorney at the FBI was under investigation for leaking to the media during a fall congressional interview, where Baker’s attorney, Daniel Levin told lawmakers, “You may or may not know, [Baker has] been the subject of a leak investigation … a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department.” Levin’s statement was included in the letter from Meadows and Jordan.

The Congressmen write to Durham, “As we continue our oversight and investigative work, we felt it prudent to write to you seeking an update. Without being apprised of the contours of your leak investigation and Baker’s role, we run the risk of inadvertently interfering with your prosecutorial plans.”

Fox News Reports:

The transcript of the closed-door interview and the letter do not include details explaining why the investigation is being led out of the Connecticut office. The status of the investigation is not publicly known. But the disclosure marks the latest confirmation of a leak investigation involving FBI figures who have since left the bureau.

Baker’s congressional testimony made headlines last fall when it was revealed that he believed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was “serious” when telling colleagues he wanted to secretly record President Trump.

While Baker himself was not in the room with Rosenstein when he made the comments, two of his associates were: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer, Lisa Page. Both McCabe and Page allegedly took Rosenstein seriously and conveyed that to Baker.

Media Malpractice Continues: Network News Coverage of Trump in 2018 was 90% Negative

A vast majority of the evening network news coverage of President Trump’s second year in office has been overwhelmingly negative, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).

MRC’s study found that 90% of news coverage of the President from ABC, CBS and NBC carried negative tones, with only 10% of coverage having a positive tone.

Trump’s presidency accounted for 28 percent of all evening news airtime, equaling almost 87 hours of coverage. Surprisingly, this is down from 2017 when evening news shows spent 99 hours covering the president.

Of course, the Russia investigation dominated the networks’ coverage of President Trump, devoting 858 minutes or airtime to the topic. Since January of 2017, the big three networks covered the Russia probe for 2,092 minutes.

For the full report, click HERE.

Democrats Reject Trump’s Invitation for Border Security Meeting at White House

Democratic lawmakers rejected President Trump’s invitation for a border security meeting today at the White House.

Fox News reports:

A senior administration official told Fox News that the president had invited Democrats to join his lunch with members of Congress in the Roosevelt Room shortly after noon. But moments before the session, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that nobody took them up on the offer.

Sanders said in her statement, “The President has a proposal on the table that includes additional technology at ports of entry, allows minors from Central America to seek asylum in their home country, and physical barriers between ports of entry made of steel instead of concrete. Today, the President offered both Democrats and Republicans the chance to meet for lunch at the White House. Unfortunately, no Democrats will attend. The President looks forward to having a working lunch with House Republicans to solve the border crisis and reopen the government. It’s time for the Democrats to come to the table and make a deal.”

The President didn’t invite Speaker Pelosi to the meeting, and instead reached out to rank-and-file members. Pelosi gave her blessing for the members to attend, however, they ultimately decided to boycott the meeting.

Last Wednesday, the President walked out on a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer after they refused to budge on the border wall.

The President tweeted after the brief meeting, “Just left a meeting with Chuck and Nancy, a total waste of time. I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!”

As Shutdown Drags – Here’s a Wall Democrats Funded… in 2018

Our current government shutdown over Democrats refusal to approve funding for Donald Trump’s proposed border wall highlights just how partisan politics has truly become.

Amusingly, the fact-less fact-checkers over at PolitFact are pretending otherwise. In response to Trump’s January 8th prime time address on the border wall where he claimed that “Sen. Chuck Schumer, who you will be hearing from later tonight, has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats,” Politifact’s Manuela Tobias calls the claim a “mischaracterization” that was rated as “mostly false.” Why? Because Democrats voted for 700 miles of fencing with the 2006 Secure Fence Act, while Trump wants concrete.

That’s seriously Politifact’s basis for claiming that Democrats haven’t done a 180 on the issue of border security. Perhaps some quotes where the same Democrats opposing Trump today echoed his rhetoric will help explain just why they supported such a fence:

  • “The American people are a welcoming and generous people. But those who enter our country illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. Americans are right to demand better border security and better enforcement of the immigration laws.” – Senator Barack Obama, April 2006.
  • Mexico is such an important problem. The Mexican government’s policies are pushing migration north. There isn’t any sensible approach except to do what we need to do simultaneously; secure our border — with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary in some places. We need to have tough employer sanctions, incentivize Mexico to do more.” – Senator Hillary Clinton, 2006.
  • “[t]he American people need to know that, because of our efforts in Congress, our border is far more secure today than it was when we began debating comprehensive immigration reform in 2005. This progress includes … construction of 630 miles of border fence that create a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border.” – Chuck Schumer, 2009. Schumer’s website also boasted a 27% decline in illegal border crossings in 2009, “suggesting major progress in sealing off the border.”

So if they were to support a fence to curtail illegal immigration, why not a wall, which would be an order of magnitude more effective? One word: Trump.

Democrat Support for a Border Wall Tanked Immediately After Trump Became the GOP Nominee

The smoking gun proving that the renewed border debate is all political comes from the fact that Democrat support for the wall didn’t tank until after Trump became the Republican nominee (with the border wall central to his platform). As pollster Emily Ekins noted:

In early 2006 a Time/SRBI poll found that a slim majority (52 percent) of Democrats also favored “building a security fence along the 2,000-mile US-Mexican border.” Sixty-one percent (61 percent) of Republicans also agreed. Between 2005 and 2015, polls show that nearly half of Democrats continued to support building a border barrier of some kind.

For reference, Trump became the GOP nominee in July 2016, and you can see what happened immediately next:

Democrats Voted to Fund a Wall…. in 2018

Voting for walls is A-OK for Democrats in the Trump-era, but apparently only if they’re overseas. In 2016 VICE Magazine ran a piece on the “Great Wall of Jordan,” which detailed America’s strategy to keep ISIS out of their country. “The Obama administration is spending close to a half a billion dollars to build a sophisticated electronic fence along Jordan’s northern and eastern borders, a wall which US strategic planners hope will stem the flow of refugees and also wall off the increasingly important American base from the disintegration of Syria and Iraq,” they reported at the time.

The article further describes that “When completed later this decade, the border wall will have a camera-studded high-security fence, plus a network of ground sensors and a set of fixed and mobile surveillance towers that will be able to see and detect activity five miles away on either side of the fence.” Not bad – and in March of last year Congress (including all Democrats) voted for an Omnibus bill that continued funding Jordan’s border.

As Neil Munro noted, the omnibus budget says on page 394:

SEC. 9011. Up to $500,000,000 of funds appropriated by this Act for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ may be used to provide assistance to the Government of Jordan to support the armed forces of Jordan and to enhance security along its borders.

On page 375, the omnibus says:

For the ‘‘Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund’’, $1,769,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2019 …

That these funds may be used in such amounts as the Secretary of Defense may determine to enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia resulting from actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Granted, Jordan’s border was built for counterterrorism purposes, but I don’t remember hearing any Democrats arguing their border is “immoral.” Nor do I remember hearing that “walls don’t work.”

After that omnibus bill was initially proposed, Rep. Jim Jordan went on Fox News to blast the spending bill because the border wall is “the one thing” it refuses to fund. “The one thing we don’t fund is the one issue we all campaigned on, a border security wall, and that is not in the legislation,” He was half-right – Congress only couldn’t be bothered to fund a wall for America.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats know that borders do work. After all, if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have much reason to fear Trump’s wall.