Home Blog

Dana Trash: CNN Host Asks Surgeon General If Fox News Is ‘Killing People’ with COVID Opinion

0

CNN State of the Union host Dana Bash lived up to her last name on Sunday morning, bashing Fox News (and Newsmax) as a lethal threat. Playing off President Biden’s rant that Facebook is “killing people” with COVID misinformation, Bash asked Surgeon General Vivek Murthy if “conservative media like Fox News” are killing people. 

“Trash first,” not facts first: 

DANA TRASH: CNN host takes Biden’s rant about Facebook “killing people” with COVID misinformation and smears it on Fox.

“Do you think conservative media, like Fox News, are doing the same? Are they killing people, too, with rhetoric like you just heard?” pic.twitter.com/m8vs4ziXTz
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) July 18, 2021

BASH: And to that point, you said that disinformation coming from so-called bad actors is also to blame for this. And I want our viewers to have an idea of disinformation being spread on the right. Take a listen.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: There’s nothing more anti-democratic, anti-freedom than pushing an experimental drug on Americans against their will.

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: The idea that you would force people to take medicine they don’t want or need, is there a precedent for that in our — in our lifetime?

ROB SCHMITT, NEWSMAX: I feel like a vaccination, in a weird way, is just generally kind of going against nature.

BASH: I wonder if that person has ever flown in an airplane or a car or taken an Advil. But, besides that, President Biden did accuse social media platforms of killing people. Do you think conservative media, like Fox News, are doing the same? Are they killing people, too, with rhetoric like you just heard?

Notice that Ingraham and Carlson are featured mostly attacking mandatory vaccination, not vaccination. (Saying we don’t “need” vaccination sounds more hardline.) On Tucker’s July 6 show, he was making the point that the average age of those who died from COVID was 78, but the liberals panicked everyone.

During the segment quoted from July 12, Ingraham played a clip of liberal Sen. Dick Durbin saying “There are two host of programs on Fox primetime that can only be characterized as anti-vax quacks. I’m referring, of course, to Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham.” CNN is the Voice of Durbin. Or she’s copy-catting leftists at The New Republic.

Like a politician, Murthy sidestepped the swipe.

MURTHY: Well, Dana, I think all of us, including the media, including individuals, health professionals, have a responsibility to share the truth about health, as science dictates, as science informs us. And unless we do that, unless we are honest about the consequences of our communication with people, unless we are rigorous about ensuring that what we communicate is actually sourced from science, and not from an opinion, on critical issues like the vaccine, then we are going to ultimately put people at risk.

PS: Just before that, Bash pressed Murthy on what a Facebook official said to CNN in response to Biden’s “killing people” rant: “In private exchanges, the surgeon general has praised our work, including our efforts to inform people about COVID- 19. They knew what they were doing. The White House is looking for scapegoats for missing their vaccine goals.”

She said “that Facebook official is accusing you of saying one thing in public and another behind closed doors. Is that accurate?” He denied it. “Well, I have been very consistent in what I have said to the technology companies that I have spoken with, a number of them, over the last many months, and my team has as well.”

Read more: newsbusters.org

Judge won’t let contractor see Capitol Riot grand jury evidence

0

A federal judge has thrown a monkey wrench into the prosecution of more than 500 Capitol riot defendants by denying the Justice Department’s request to share grand jury materials with a contractor hired to organize the massive amounts of video, social media, email and other evidence in the cases.

The ruling Friday could complicate and drag out the prosecutions by requiring government personnel to be more involved in aspects of the process of sharing evidence with defense attorneys.

In May, the Justice Department agreed to pay Deloitte Financial Advisory Services $6.1 million to set up a database containing various kinds of materials the FBI has tracked down in connection with the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, as lawmakers were planning to certify the electoral vote returns.

In a 54-page decision, Washington-based U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell rejected the government’s arguments that the contractor’s staff would qualify as the equivalent of government employees under the secrecy provisions of grand jury rules. She also said prosecutors had failed to demonstrate that there was a “particularized need” to give Deloitte’s personnel access to the grand jury materials.

“The term ‘government personnel’ is best construed, in accord with the bulk of the district court case law, as including only employees of public governmental entities,” wrote Howell, who oversees grand jury matters as the D.C.-based court’s chief judge.

“Deloitte, a private firm contracted by the government on a non-exclusive basis, is a private rather than a public governmental entity, and its staff are employees of the firm rather than the government. [The grand jury secrecy rule] thus does not allow disclosure of grand jury matters to Deloitte and its employees,” Howell added.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Howell argued that prosecutors’ request, at its core, was about simplifying their obligations to provide evidence to the defendants. That, on its own, she said, is not enough to justify waiving grand jury secrecy.

“Disclosures of grand jury information must be substantiated by more than a need for the government to separate efficiently the wheat from the chaff,” she said.

Howell’s ruling appeared to be heavily influenced by her experience in a recent case involving a historian who sought records of a grand jury investigation into the disappearance of a Columbia professor and political activist in the 1950s.

Howell ruled in favor of the historian, concluding that judges had discretion to release grand jury material in compelling circumstances not specifically authorized by the secrecy rule. But the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Howell and concluded that judges lack that discretion.

The judge suggested in her opinion that the Justice Department interpreted the rule strictly in that case, but wants it interpreted more liberally now that prosecutors could use some wiggle room to deal with the massive Jan. 6 investigation. She described the prosecutors’ new stance as “an expedient relaxation of the government’s position.”

Howell also raised concerns that the government’s broad request to share “all” grand jury material with Deloitte “means that the materials to be disclosed may have been collected in connection with investigations of individuals who are never targeted, never charged, or exonerated.”

“Since the government’s request is also prospective, applying to any related matters yet to be brought before a grand jury, the materials to be disclosed to Deloitte may relate to individuals still under investigation who may be indicted or exonerated in the future,” she added.

This, she said, could spook witnesses concerned that the extensive evidence sharing could tip off outsiders to the scope and direction of the Justice Department’s Capitol riot investigation.

“The safeguards built into the government’s contract with Deloitte therefore do not assuage the concern that bulk disclosure to this private entity will undermine the interests of grand jury secrecy, particularly in such a high-profile and historically significant investigation,” Howell wrote.

While prosecutors have said they plan to disclose most of their evidence to all defendants in order to satisfy constitutional obligations to share “exculpatory” evidence, Howell suggested many defendants don’t have a right to see all the evidence gathered through the grand jury.

“As precedent makes clear, a defendant charged with offenses stemming from the Capitol attack likely faces an uphill battle in seeking disclosure of the materials presented to the grand jury that indicted him,” the chief judge wrote. “Yet under the government’s rationale and the two-step disclosure process it envisions, Deloitte, a private firm, would gain greater access to grand jury materials in all the Capitol attack cases than any individual defendant is entitled to receive in his own case.”

Read more: politico.com

Happy Birthday to Hate! MSNBC Turns 25, Here’s 5 of the Net’s Most Vile Outbursts

0

MSNBC, the network that turned vicious, hateful attacks against conservatives, independents and Americans in general into a depressingly regular occurrence, turned 25 this week.  And while the venom spewed from the cable network may not shock anymore, we thought MSNBC’s birthday was a good time to recall the five of the worst examples. 

MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin, who now has a daytime talk show on the network, shocked even the liberal hosts of Morning Joe on January 29, 2015 when he slimed Chris Kyle, the real American Sniper, as a “racist” who went on “killing sprees.” 

Here’s the exchange: 

AYMAN MOHYELDIN: A lot of his stories when he was back home in Texas, a lot of his own personal opinions about what he was doing in Iraq, how he viewed Iraqis. Some of what people have described as his racist tendencies towards Iraqis and Muslims when he was going on some of these, you know, killing sprees in Iraq on assignment. So I think there are issues — 

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait. Killing sprees? Chris Kyle was going on killing sprees? 

MOHYELDIN: When he was involved in his — on assignments in terms of what he was doing. A lot of the description that has come out from his book and some of the terminology that he has used, people have described as racist. 

 

 

After 23 years at the network, Chris Matthews left MSNBC in 2020. During all that time, he fulminated and smeared conservatives regularly. So we are declaring a tie on Hardball hate. One from 2009 in which he fumed that “someone’s going to jam a C02 pellet into Rush [Limbaugh’s] head.” The other is when he declared Newt Gingrich a satanic “car bomber.” 

“You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big?  In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up.  I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.  That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?”
— Hardball Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC live coverage on October 13, 2009.

 

“But he [Newt Gingrich] looks like a car bomber. He looks like a car bomber. Clarence, he looks like a car bomber. He’s got that crazy Mephistophelian grin of his. He looks like he loves torturing. Look at the guy! I mean this, this is not the face of a president.”
— Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, March 2, 2011. 

 

 

In 2011, Keith Olbermann left MSNBC. But for years, they indulged, celebrated and tried to be embarrassed by his deranged, unhinged hate. In the October 2007 edition of Playboy, the MSNBC host declared Fox News worse — yes worse — than al Qaeda. 

Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda – worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.

Host Chris Hayes “honored” Memorial Day weekend in 2012 by admitting that he is “uncomfortable” with calling fallen soldiers “heroes.” Here he is on May 27, 2012: 

I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”?  I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. 

 

 

Two days later, after considerable blowback, he apologized. 

Finally, the winner by sheer grossness, Martin Bashir on November 15, 2013, suggested that someone should “s-h-i-t” in Sarah Palin’s mouth. (Yes, he spelled it out, as if that made it any less disgusting.) Citing Palin’s political comparison to slavery, he offered this disgusting take. 

 

 

Here’s a transcript: [Click “expand” to read more.] 

One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years. Thistlewood was the son of a tenant farmer who arrived on the island of Jamaica in April 1750, and assumed the position of overseer at a major plantation. What is most shocking about Thistlewood’s diary is not simply the fact that he assumes the right to own and possess other human beings, but is the sheer cruelty and brutality of his regime.

In 1756, he records that “A slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.” This became known as Darby’s dose, a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owners savagery and inhumanity.

And he mentions a similar incident again in 1756, this time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch. “Flogged Punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper; made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth.” I could go on, but you get the point.

When Mrs. Palin invoked slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate.

Twenty five years later, MSNBC is the home of left-wing hate. One can only imagine what the future will bring for the liberal cable network. 

Read more: newsbusters.org

Cop Hater Kaepernick Releases Plans for Children’s Book About Race

0

Colin Kaepernick isn’t done pushing the left-wing agenda and forcing his way into the spotlight just yet. In May the one-time football player and BLM Marxist activist announced the creation of Kaepernick Publications. Now he has released plans for a new children’s book series. He is working in partnership with Scholastic to create the picture books, and the first one will be titled “I Color Myself Different.” 

Most everyone knows that Kaepernick is not famous for being an all-star football player or an award winning author. He made his millions from spitting on the country that gave him his fortunes and kneeling during the national anthem because he is just so ‘oppressed.’ 

The first book released by Kaepernick Publications is titled “Abolition for The People: The Movement For A Future Without Policing & Prisons.” The book was edited by none other than Colin Kaepernick himself who has no experience in the writing field. 

Now, he has decided that his football career prepared him for a writing career. His first book, which is supposed to be for children, will be edited by Scholastic VP Andrea Davis Pinkney and published in April 2022. If his writing career is anything like his football career, we won’t have to deal with him for long.

Kaepernick posted this on Twitter announcing the new book:

 

I’m excited to share that I’ll be publishing I COLOR MYSELF DIFFERENT, a children’s book, with @KaepernickPub & @Scholastic on 4/5/22! #IColorMyselfDifferent is deeply personal to me & honors the courage & bravery of young people everywhere. Pre-order at https://t.co/0LpdyphIsD pic.twitter.com/kfnLZUVpBP
— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) July 15, 2021

 

The publication will discuss “a significant childhood memory of when Kaepernick first documented that he was different from his adopted white family.” The book’s description states that “During a kindergarten exercise on drawing families, Kaepernick remembers putting down the yellow crayon he had been using to draw his family and picking up the brown crayon for himself. This moment crystallized for him the differences marked by his adoption, and how acknowledging those distinctions could encourage us all to be more accepting of ourselves and each other.”

If we are to be more accepting of each other then why are we pointing out differences in skin color? Because divisiveness sells in today’s world and that is where Kaepernick’s talent truly lies. 

“Colin Kaepernick’s inspiring story, with themes of identity, race, and self-esteem, will resonate deeply with all kids,” said President and Publisher of Scholastic Trade Publishing Ellie Berger. “We are privileged to bring this work to young readers around the world for the very first time.”

Pointing out that everyone has different colored skin and should be treated a certain way because of that does not “resonate” with children, that’s the exact opposite of what MLK wanted.

The Senior Management team at Scholastic is majority white, nonetheless Kaepernick had this to say:

I’m excited for Kaepernick Publishing to be collaborating with Scholastic on books with Black and Brown voices at the forefront.  I hope that our books will inspire readers to walk through the world with confidence, strength, and truth in all they do. 

Instead of imagining a world without police I’d like to imagine a world without Scholastic. 

Read more: newsbusters.org

Univision Continues to Spread DISINFORMATION on Texas Election Law

0

Univision’s latest effort to disinform and deceive its audience comes via its report on the Texas Democrats that fled to Washington, per anchor Jorge Ramos, to “boycott voting on a bill that would restrict the voting rights of Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Watch as Univision blatantly propagandizes for H.R.1 while continuing to argue, without evidence, that red-state election security laws are “restrictive”:

 

 

JORGE RAMOS: The governor of Texas wants to arrest Democratic lawmakers. They are the ones who left that state to boycott voting on a bill that would restrict the voting rights of Hispanics and African-Americans. Today they are in Washington, asking Congress to protect the vote. And President Biden supported their request. 

CLAUDIA UCEDA: They’re Democratic lawmakers from Texas, but they came to the capital to block an election reform bill. Now  Republicans in that state are accusing lawmakers of breaking the law. Washington is their sanctuary.

REP. VICTORIA NEAVE (D) TEXAS: We’re not afraid. We know we are here fighting for the rights of our community.

UCEDA: They responded to the menacing Republican governor of Texas, who demanded that they return immediately.

ABBOTT: They will be arrested…

UCEDA: They will be arrested as soon as they come back. They will be locked up inside the Texas capitol, he said angrily. Texas Democrats say that they won’t give in.

REP. ALEJANDRO DOMIGUEZ (D)TX: We’re not going to fight a bully like that on his own terms. We’re going to fight the way we do.

UCEDA: On private jets, Democrats traveled to Washington to skip voting on one of the most restrictive election bills in the country. The law would ban 24-hour polling stations and car voting, mainly affecting the participation of ethnic minorities. 

(….)

UCEDA: 17 states have already enacted laws limiting access to the polls. The President said —

PRES. JOE BIDEN: The Big Lie

UCEDA: — that those who pass those laws support big lies, referring to unfounded accusations of electoral fraud. 

As expected with their reports on electoral laws — and as MRC Latino has previously covered here, here and here — the Univision piece shouted the same point over and over again without evidence that the Texas bill is “one of the most restrictive election bills in the country.” What’s so restrictive about the Texas bill, according to Univision? The law’s ban on 24-hour polling stations, drive-through voting, and ballot harvesting. Univision provided no details as to how or why this would affect minorities, nor do they mention the voter ID requirements included in the bill. 

Univision’s report praised Biden for calling measures like the Texas voting integrity law that protect voting rights and prevent fraud “A Big Lie,” while continuing to prove that the biggest spreaders of disinformation within the Hispanic community are, in fact, Spanish-language corporate media. Univision insists on pushing its own “big lie,” the assertion that “17 states have already enacted laws limiting access to the polls,” which was premised upon emergency pandemic measures being the baseline, as opposed to the existing statutes that these election security laws vastly improved upon.

It would be great to actually see a fair, informative report on the subject, but that might conflict with Univision’s agenda, and anger their allies at the White House.

This blatant disinformation was brought to you by Toyota. Click here and let them know what you think.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the segment mentioned above:

Noticiero Univision
July 31, 2021

JORGE RAMOS: The governor of Texas wants to arrest Democratic lawmakers. They are the ones who left that state to boycott voting on a bill that would restrict the voting rights of Hispanics and African-Americans. Today they are in Washington, asking Congress to protect the vote. And President Biden supported their request. Claudia Uceda is there.

CLAUDIA UCEDA: They’re Democratic lawmakers from Texas, but they came to the capital to block an election reform bill. Now  Republicans in that state are accusing lawmakers of breaking the law. Washington is their sanctuary.

REP. VICTORIA NEAVE (D) TEXAS: We’re not afraid. We know we are here fighting for the rights of our community.

UCEDA: They responded to the menacing Republican governor of Texas, who demanded that they return immediately.

ABBOTT: They will be arrested…

UCEDA: They will be arrested as soon as they come back. They will be locked up inside the Texas capitol, he said angrily. Texas Democrats say that they won’t give in.

REP. ALEJANDRO DOMIGUEZ (D)TX: We’re not going to fight a bully like that on his own terms. We’re going to fight the way we do.

UCEDA: On private jets, Democrats traveled to Washington to skip voting on one of the most restrictive election bills in the country. The law would ban 24-hour polling stations and car voting, mainly affecting the participation of ethnic minorities. But this action will only delay and may not stop the changes that a majority of Republican lawmakers want to implement.

REP. TRAVIS CLARDY (R) TX: It’s a disappointment

UCEDA: I’m very disappointed in my colleagues, this Republican said. Texas lawmakers plan to stay 30 days in Washington in order to lobby for a national election reform bill.

NEAVE: They have the power to agree to the “For the Peoples Act”, and that is the law we need.

UCEDA: But in order for laws to pass in Washington, Texas Democrats need the support of Republican senators, something they wouldn’t have. 17 states have already enacted laws limiting access to the polls. The president said …

PRES. JOE BIDEN: The Big Lie

UCEDA:… that those who pass those laws support big lies, referring to unfounded accusations of electoral fraud. Meanwhile, the Texas House of Representatives has already approved warrants for the arrest of the 57 Democrats. It remains to be seen when these would occur. In Washington, Claudia Uceda, Univision.

Read more: newsbusters.org

McCarthy makes his 5 GOP picks for Jan. 6 select committee

0

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has chosen his five GOP appointees for the Democrat-led select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

While the California Republican took his time deciding between naming more experienced members to the probe, filling his seats with firebrands, and refusing to tap any members at all, McCarthy ultimately chose to go with the former route with his selections. His picks have the committee leadership and oversight chops to counter Democrats who are expected to use the select panel to hammer Donald Trump and the GOP for fueling the deadly assault on the Capitol.

McCarthy’s choices for the panel, all talked about as likely, are led by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the Republican Study Committee, as the ranking member. Banks, who oversees the largest House GOP caucus, is viewed within the party as a skilled messenger.

The other members include Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, a moderate who serves as the top Republican on the House Administration Committee; Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), a lawyer by trade who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment; and freshman Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a former sheriff who supported Capitol Police in turning back rioters who tried to break into the House floor during the siege.

McCarthy said he wanted to "make sure you get the best people on the committee,” touting Davis’ work on the administration panel and Nehls’ years in law enforcement.

McCarthy’s appointments come days before the select panel is set to hold its first hearing, featuring witnesses from the U.S. Capitol Police Department and Metropolitan Police Department. Among the Democratic-named members of the committee is Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), a McCarthy critic ousted from House GOP leadership for her condemnation of Trump.

The investigation is expected to be highly contentious, as both parties wrestle to pin blame for the security failures on Jan. 6 that led to scores of law enforcement injuries as Trump supporters rioted to try to disrupt Congress from certifying his loss to President Joe Biden. Three out of McCarthy’s five expected selections for the Republican side of the select panel voted in favor of challenges to certification of Biden’s victory.

Jordan declined Monday to say whether he has been asked by McCarthy to serve on the panel. When asked whether he is willing, the Ohio Republican said the decision is “totally up to Kevin” but that he would join the roster if asked.

Read more: politico.com

Man who threatened Flynn-case judge sentenced to 18 months

0

A New York man who left a graphic death threat on the voicemail of the federal judge handling the high-profile criminal case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was sentenced Monday to 18 months in prison.

Frank Caporusso, 53, received the sentence during a hearing in federal court where the disturbing message was played aloud at the request of the judge who received it last May, Emmet Sullivan.

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden called the threat “heinous,” but said later he was “convinced” that Caporusso never actually planned to carry it out.

Still, McFadden said the threat itself caused significant harm to Sullivan and his staff and heightened the sense of danger felt by many federal judges amid a sharp spike in threats, as well as the shooting attack last year at the home of a federal judge in New Jersey. That assault left her son dead and her husband seriously wounded.

“Judicial robes aren’t bulletproof,” McFadden said.

McFadden said Caporusso’s threat was particularly outrageous because he specifically discussed plans to kill Sullivan’s staff. McFadden said the law clerks who work with federal judges are typically young lawyers who lack the limited protections judges have.

“They don’t have security systems in their apartments. They don’t have federal marshals guarding them,” said McFadden. “Your threat was despicable and it was calculated to instill a maximum amount of fear.”

As part of a plea deal with prosecutors, Caporusso admitted leaving the message on the voicemail of Sullivan’s chambers last year days after the Justice Department made a surprising move to drop the false-statement case Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office filed against Flynn in 2017.

At the time of the call, Sullivan had recently indicated that he wouldn’t immediately drop the case and wanted a former federal judge to submit arguments on why the Justice Department’s filing might not require such a dismissal.

McFadden said it was clear Caporusso’s threat was an attempt to affect Sullivan’s decisions on the Flynn case. "It was intended to subvert the criminal justice system by intimidating him from a high-profile case," McFadden said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rachel Fletcher described Caporusso’s threat as “frankly chilling.”

Moments earlier, Caporusso’s gravelly voice could be heard as the recording played on her laptop near a courtroom microphone.

“We are professionals. We are trained military people. We will be on rooftops. You will not be safe. A hot piece of lead will cut through your skull. You bastard. You will be killed, and I don’t give a f— who you are,” Caporusso said in the message left on the line in Sullivan’s chambers on May 14, 2020. “Back out of this bulls— before it’s too late, or we’ll start cutting down your staff. This is not a threat. This is a promise.”

Caporusso also acknowledged that he called Sullivan’s chambers multiple other times on the same day and at least twice the following day.

In a statement Fletcher read to the court, Sullivan said the threat had a major impact on his life.

“The defendant before you threatened to murder me because he disagreed with my judicial decisions,” Sullivan said. “I feel fear now even though the defendant is in custody.”

Sullivan said he made major changes to his routine, dramatically curtailing both his social and professional engagements. “My sons took certain steps to enhance my security,” the judge said, without going into details.

Caporusso, clad in an orange jumpsuit from the Central Virginia Regional Jail, rose to address the court toward the end of the hour-long hearing and express “great remorse.” He said he suffered a serious injury last year, became addicted to opioids, then turned to alcohol prior to leaving the threat.

“I was not thinking well or doing well at that time,” Caporusso said. “I shudder to think that those words could actually come from me. … I humbly apologize to Judge Sullivan, his staff and their families.”

Defense attorney David Benowitz also said that when he and another attorney played the audio of the message for Caporusso, he seemed crushed by what he had done. "He looked like he had been hit over the head with an anvil," the defense lawyer said.

Benowitz also argued that Caporusso fell victim to the "supercharged political climate" — an apparent reference to former President Donald Trump’s frequent public criticism of Sullivan and the overall prosecution against Flynn.

Benowitz asked that Caporusso be sentenced to time served — the nearly 11 months he has spent in pretrial detention since his arrest last August. However, McFadden said he did not think that was adequate punishment. He sided with the prosecution, which recommended an 18-month sentence. McFadden also imposed two years of probation.

Under federal prison policies, Caporusso could be out in about four or five months.

Caporusso’s defense made no attempt to change the venue in the case or to seek an out-of-town judge, even though McFadden and Sullivan work in the same courthouse on a daily basis — or did prior to the pandemic.

However, McFadden offered a spontaneous assurance during Monday’s hearing that he was not being influenced by any pressure from Sullivan. “To be clear, he and I have never spoken about this case,” said McFadden. “He is a patriot. He did not deserve this and he certainly does not deserve to live in fear over your actions.”

For his part, Sullivan suggested no specific sentence in the statement he submitted to the court.

After a delay while Flynn’s lawyers pursued a petition at an appeals court, Sullivan finally held a hearing last September on the Justice Department’s unusual motion to dismiss the case against Flynn despite the fact he had already pleaded guilty. The judge’s decision was still pending when Trump issued Flynn a full and unconditional pardon about two weeks after the presidential election last November. Sullivan dismissed the case the following month.

One somewhat unusual aspect of the sentencing hearing was that neither Fletcher nor Benowitz referred to Sullivan by name, describing him simply as the judge who was the victim in the case, although details of Sullivan’s background in the statement she read made his identity unmistakable. Caporusso was the first to mention Sullivan aloud by referencing him in his apology to the court. Then, as he imposed the sentence, McFadden also made several references to Sullivan by name.

Read more: politico.com

Column: Mark Levin’s Call to Rebut Homegrown ‘American Marxism’

0

We’re six months into the Biden administration, and the liberal media are still obsessing over new books full of titillating tales from anonymous sources about President Trump. Meanwhile, Mark Levin’s newest best-seller – provocatively titled American Marxism — is too counter-revolutionary for these journalists to take seriously.

CNN’s Brian Stelter touted two new anti-Trump books that were #3 and #4 on Amazon. But “In a display of our fractured state of the union, two Fox hosts” were beating them. “Mark Levin is at #1 and Jesse Watters is at #2. The difference, of course, is that Levin and Watters don’t do any reporting. They just bitch and moan about others’ reporting.”

Does anyone believe Brian has actually read these books?

On the day of Levin’s book release, Stelter tweeted “Politics dominating the top of the Amazon best sellers page right now: Mark Levin’s new screed at #1”.

I have read large chunks of Brian Stelter’s anti-Fox News book Hoax. That’s a “screed.” That’s indisputably “bitching and moaning about others’ reporting.”

Stelter spends all day criticizing Fox News as a blight on America, and can’t handle anyone saying the liberal networks are a blight on America, that they hate America, that they want to reshape our country into a socialist utopia. Are the media Marxist? They would say no, they’re “saving democracy.” But they see no enemies to their left. There is no dangerous extreme.

As Levin told Brent Bozell in an exclusive book interview: “Where in the media do they oppose critical race theory, other than Fox and talk radio and some of the other cable channels? The vast majority of the media promote it, they lie for it, they celebrate it, they bring the radicals on TV to lie about it.” Theorists like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, who declare all whites inherently racist until they confess their support for a “racial reckoning,” have been repeatedly celebrated in the “mainstream news” broadcasts. There is no debate allowed.

Levin points out how Chuck Todd proudly announced he would host a Meet the Press show on climate change that excluded any critics of dramatic energy reduction and regulation, to “break the political paralysis over it.” Todd can’t accept a climate debate, but he can give two supportive interviews to Antifa theorist and author Mark Bray in 2017. Antifa is explicitly violent and anti-capitalist, but Todd can give that a platform..

Organizers of the “Black Lives Matter” movement like Patrisse Cullors have explicitly announced that they are well-educated Marxist theorists, and yet National Public Radio implied right-wingers calling them Marxist “amplify often baseless anti-BLM messages.” BLM organizers are warmly welcomed and promoted as heroic figures on liberal networks.

The “news” media have also pressured the social media giants into suppressing conservative content. Levin shares the Media Research Center’s list of the top ten cases of Big Tech censorship in 2020. That begins with the New York Post’s bombshells from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which Twitter and Facebook suppressed. These companies worked to get Joe Biden elected, and Biden, like the media, can’t condemn anything Marxist. See White House press secretary Jen Psaki slink away from condemning Cuba’s communist dictators while Cuban protesters waved the American flag in the streets.

Censors like Stelter advocate for Fox News to be dropped by cable companies, as if conservatism is “poison.” So Levin is calling on Americans to support conservative media on television, in newspapers, and on the internet, because the Old Media have demonstrated “speech, debate, and challenges to Marxist-centric ideas are not tolerated.” We won’t have a democracy unless American Marxism faces a forceful rebuttal. 

Read more: newsbusters.org

Buck, Gooden Launch Freedom from Big Tech Caucus in Battle for Free Expression

0

Several prominent House Republicans have created a new caucus in their battle to rein in Big Tech’s growing power.

Reps. Ken Buck (R-CO) and Lance Gooden (R-TX) launched the Freedom from Big Tech Caucus to fight back against Big Tech. “Big Tech companies operate under an ‘America last’ mindset that has negatively affected consumers and small businesses across the country while benefiting China and entrenching their gatekeeper power,” said Buck’s press release on the caucus.

Buck and Gooden serve as co-chairs of the caucus, according to the press release. Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) serves as vice-chair, and Reps. Burgess Owens (R-UT) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) joined as founding members.

The congressmen who make up the caucus have seven key points to take on Big Tech: “The Freedom from Big Tech Caucus will unite Republicans in Congress to rein in Big Tech. Through legislation, education, and awareness, the Freedom from Big Tech Caucus will: 

“Restore the free and dynamic digital economy 
“Promote competition and innovation
“Protect children from harmful content online
“Support small businesses, startups, and entrepreneurs
“Protect privacy and data rights
“End political censorship 
“Counter Big Tech’s courtship of the Chinese Communist Party”

Buck pulled no punches and slammed Big Tech’s total lack of accountability. “‘Big Tech has abused its market power for decades, and Congress must act to hold these companies accountable and preserve the free market, promote competition and innovation, protect the freedom of speech, and foster a thriving digital economy,’” said Buck, according to the press release.

Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee also released their agenda to fight back against Big Tech on July 6. The agenda “presents specific proposals that will speed up and strengthen antitrust enforcement, hold Big Tech accountable for its censorship, and increase transparency around Big Tech’s decisions,” according to a press release. However, it appears that the Freedom from Big Tech Caucus will focus more on censorship and data privacy. The House Judiciary Committee passed six bills aimed at taking down Big Tech’s monopoly power over a two-day marathon markup in June.

The lawmakers have every right to be concerned. Big Tech’s censorship of conservative voices appears to accelerate almost daily — and now with even more pressure from the Biden administration. A recent investigation from MRC Free Speech America found that Amazon’s charity program, AmazonSmile, allows organizations like Planned Parenthood and The Satanic Temple to receive donations from the company. Meanwhile, conservative organizations like the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom cannot. 

Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Read more: newsbusters.org

House Republicans close money gap with majority at stake

0

House Republicans spent the last four years drowning under an avalanche of Democratic campaign cash. Now they’re staging a fundraising comeback — just in time for a run at the majority.

Over the past three months, GOP incumbents have largely matched Democrats in the money race. The winning formula: a full embrace of digital fundraising, the maturation of their fledgling WinRed platform and donor optimism after a successful showing down-ballot in 2020. All that combined has allowed them to begin erasing the massive financial advantage that Democrats have enjoyed since the rise of former President Donald Trump.

At least 49 Democrats and 43 Republicans each raised more than $500,000 in the second quarter of 2021 — a fairly even split — according to a POLITICO analysis of campaign finance reports filed this week. That’s a stark contrast with the second quarter of 2019, when roughly 50 Democratic candidates cleared that threshold, but only some 30 Republicans reached that mark.

"Our leaders are setting records. And our members — especially these freshmen — you’ve got these $500,000 to $1 million reports that are coming out just a couple years after a big report for Republicans was typically around $250,000,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The GOP had some prolific fundraisers last quarter: Reps. Young Kim (R-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) both cleared $1 million. Reps. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) raised over $850,000. All but Fitzpatrick are members of the 2020 freshman class.

To be sure, House Democrats are still posting massive quarterly totals. And the redistricting process makes it more difficult to know which incumbents will need large war chests. But Republicans are seeing a new groundswell of financial support in the off-year and, as Democrats realized in 2018, that’s often one of the earliest signs of base enthusiasm and a successful drive for the majority.

"In 2018 we put a significant emphasis on candidate development, candidate money and giving candidates the ability to go out and tell their stories," said Dan Sena, the former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "It was a central reason we were able to win back the House."

"What should be of note to Democratic strategists and the Democratic campaigns going forward is that it now seems the Republicans are doing the same thing," Sena added.

Another sign of GOP momentum: The National Republican Congressional Committee has lapped the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in fundraising, outraising the DCCC by $8 million in the first six months of 2021. At this point the 2020 cycle, House Democrats had outraised Republicans by over $17 million.

The NRCC credits that success, in part, to their painstaking and long-running efforts to build a digital operation.

In interviews, Emmer often recalls a moment in early 2019, when a top digital strategist at the committee wrote him a memo, urging a heavy investment in small-dollar fundraising. That strategist, Lyman Munschauer, predicted the NRCC would suffer a net loss on that investment of 3 to 5 percent after one year before reaping gains.

But the benefits came even more quickly: The NRCC began making money within a year, and it has continued to flow in.

In the second quarter of 2019, the NRCC raised $3.3 million online. Over the same period this year, it raised more than $14.1 million.

"This time, we’re being even more aggressive," Emmer said. "Yes, that investment is paying off."

Meanwhile, WinRed, the GOP online fundraising platform created as a counter to the Democrats’ ActBlue, has taken off at a similar clip, bringing in $2.3 billion since its created in 2019.

"Your average Democrat who runs is now all about digital money," said WinRed president Gerrit Lansing, noting ActBlue was founded in 2004. "We’re just having to complete that 15-year cultural shift and just condense it down into a couple cycles to try to catch up."

For the GOP, this windfall comes at a crucial moment. When corporate PACs announced they would scale back their donations after the Jan. 6 insurrection, there was some concern that would disproportionately impact Republicans, who sometimes rely more heavily on those gifts.

"We’re all online-based now," Lansing said of his party. The shift happened years ago, but the "fruits of that labor are really coming to fruition now. And it just so happened to coincide with this huge corporate PAC sort-of cage-rattling situation. So it’s ironic."

Perhaps more importantly, WinRed has helped Republicans redirect the wealth toward new candidates, particularly downballot. Of the $131 million raised on the platform in the second quarter, almost 40 percent of that came from first-time donors to a single campaign.

Some of the party’s most adept fundraisers are able to nudge their supporters toward other candidates. For example, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who has raised over $1 million every quarter since she shot to prominence during the first Trump impeachment trial, has shared 150,000 donors since the start of the 2020 cycle.

All of this has spurred a digital-first mentality among Republicans that has long been prevalent in the Democratic political ecosystem, which some in the GOP attribute to their current freshman class, which is younger, more tech-savvy and less accustomed to in-person fundraising than longer-term incumbents.

"We started building our digital program early," said Hinson, who was a TV news anchor in Cedar Rapids before flipping a seat in 2020. "I do enjoy doing digital fundraising. I’m a direct-to-camera person."

Filming online ads has helped her connect with constituents and donors, Hinson said. "We use Facebook ads a lot for our digital fundraising, and we have great feedback from the comment sections of those ads."

And like the NRCC, GOP campaigns appear to be becoming more comfortable with the idea of spending money to make it. Hinson, along with some of the party’s biggest fundraisers like Kim, Steel and Mace, spent well over $300,000 last quarter — a higher sum than is typical a year-and-a-half before the election.

All made significant investments in fundraising consulting, digital marketing and web ads, according to their FEC reports.

Still, Democratic incumbents retain a significant cash-on-hand advantage, especially those like Reps. Josh Harder (D-Calif.), Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) and Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.), who did not face particularly competitive reelections in 2020 and have well over $4 million in the bank. Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) has a staggering $12.9 million stashed.

And some operatives were privately relieved at the small hauls of some highly touted Republican challengers. GOP state Sen. Jen Kiggans of Virginia only raised $286,000 for her run against Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.). And Marine veteran Tyler Kistner raised just $279,000 for his rematch with Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) Though those challengers didn’t launch until mid-April, both incumbents raised well over twice as much.

Yet some of the money has also begun to trickle down to GOP challengers. Republican Derrick Van Orden outraised incumbent Rep. Ron Kind in Wisconsin, $754,000 to $409,000.

In the coming quarters, however, Republicans are facing an additional roadblock: enticing prospective challengers who are dragging their feet, waiting for the delayed redistricting process to start.

"I hope more candidates jump in soon and not wait for new district lines," said Dan Conston, the president of the Congressional Leadership Fund, a top GOP super PAC. "Because that compressed calendar is going to present a significant challenge for them for online fundraising and for big-dollar fundraising."

Read more: politico.com

FOLLOW US

22,043FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS