#post-election msnbc premiere | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

theculturedmarxist · 4 years ago

Link

To justify Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump, leading Democrats and their key media allies for years competed with one another to depict what they called “Russia’s interference in our elections” in the most apocalyptic terms possible. They fanatically rejected the view of the Russian Federation repeatedly expressed by President Obama — that it is a weak regional power with an economy smaller than Italy’s capable of only threatening its neighbors but not the U.S. — and instead cast Moscow as a grave, even existential, threat to U.S. democracy, with its actions tantamount to the worst security breaches in U.S. history.

This post-2016 mania culminated with prominent liberal politicians and journalists (as well as John McCain) declaring Russia’s activities surrounding the 2016 to be an “act of war” which, many of them insisted, was comparable to Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attack — the two most traumatic attacks in modern U.S. history which both spawned years of savage and destructive war, among other things.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) repeatedly demanded that Russia’s 2016 “interference” be treated as “an act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russian hacking as “a cyber 9/11.” And here is Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) on MSNBC in early February, 2018, pronouncing Russia “a hostile foreign power” whose 2016 meddling was the “equivalent” of Pearl Harbor, “very much on par” with the “seriousness” of the 1941 attack in Hawaii that helped prompt four years of U.S. involvement in a world war.

With the Democrats, under Joe Biden, just weeks away from assuming control of the White House and the U.S. military and foreign policy that goes along with it, the discourse from them and their media allies about Russia is becoming even more unhinged and dangerous. Moscow’s alleged responsibility for the recently revealed, multi-pronged hack of U.S. Government agencies and various corporate servers is asserted — despite not a shred of evidence, literally, having yet been presented — as not merely proven fact, but as so obviously true that it is off-limits from doubt or questioning.

Any questioning of this claim will be instantly vilified by the Democrats’ extremely militaristic media spokespeople as virtual treason. “Now the president is not just silent on Russia and the hack. He is deliberately running defense for the Kremlin by contradicting his own Secretary of State on Russian responsibility,” pronounced CNN’s national security reporter Jim Sciutto, who last week depicted Trump’s attempted troop withdrawal from Syria and Germany as “ceding territory” and furnishing “gifts” to Putin. More alarmingly, both the rhetoric to describe the hack and the retaliation being threatened are rapidly spiraling out of control.

Democrats (along with some Republicans long obsessed with The Russian Threat, such as Mitt Romney) are casting the latest alleged hack by Moscow in the most melodramatic terms possible, ensuring that Biden will enter the White House with tensions sky-high with Russia and facing heavy pressure to retaliate aggressively. Biden’s top national security advisers and now Biden himself have, with no evidence shown to the public, repeatedly threatened aggressive retaliation against the country with the world’s second-largest nuclear stockpile.

Congressman Jason Crow (D-CO) — one of the pro-war Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee who earlier this year joined with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) to block Trump’s plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan — announced: “this could be our modern day, cyber equivalent of Pearl Harbor,” adding: “Our nation is under assault.” The second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin (D-IL), pronounced: “This is virtually a declaration of war by Russia."

Meanwhile, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), who has for years been casting Russia as a grave threat to the U.S. while Democrats mocked him as a relic of the Cold War (before they copied and then surpassed him), described the latest hack as “the equivalent of Russian bombers flying undetected over the entire country.” The GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee also blasted Trump for his failure to be “aggressively speaking out and protesting and taking punitive action,” though — like virtually every prominent figure demanding tough “retaliation” — Romney failed to specify what he had in mind that would be sufficient retaliation for “the equivalent of Russian bombers flying undetected over the entire country.”

For those keeping track at home: that’s two separate “Pearl Harbors” in less than four years from Moscow (or, if you prefer, one Pearl Harbor and one 9/11). If Democrats actually believe that, it stands to reason that they will be eager to embrace a policy of belligerence and aggression toward Russia. Many of them are demanding this outright, mocking Trump for failing to attack Russia — despite no evidence that they were responsible — while their well-trained liberal flock is suggesting that the non-response constitutes some form of “high treason.”

Indeed, the Biden team has been signalling that they intend to quickly fulfill demands for aggressive retaliation. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Biden “accused President Trump [] of ‘irrational downplaying’” of the hack while “warning Russia that he would not allow the intrusion to ‘go unanswered’ after he takes office.” Biden emphasized that once the intelligence assessment is complete, “we will respond, and probably respond in kind.”

Threats and retaliation between the U.S. and Russia are always dangerous, but particularly so now. One of the key nuclear arms agreements between the two nuclear-armed nations, the New START treaty, will expire in February unless Putin and Biden can successfully negotiate a renewal: sixteen days after Biden is scheduled to take office. “That will force Mr. Biden to strike a deal to prevent one threat — a nuclear arms race — while simultaneously threatening retaliation on another,” observed the Times.

This escalating rhetoric from Washington about Russia, and the resulting climate of heightened tensions, are dangerous in the extreme. They are also based in numerous myths, deceits and falsehoods:

First, absolutely no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest, let alone prove, that Russia is responsible for these hacks. It goes without saying that it is perfectly plausible that Russia could have done this: it’s the sort of thing that every large power from China and Iran to the U.S. and Russia have the capability to do and wield against virtually every other country including one another.

But if we learned nothing else over the last several decades, we should know that accepting claims that emanate from the U.S. intelligence community about adversaries without a shred of evidence is madness of the highest order. We just had a glaring reminder of the importance of this rule: just weeks before the election, countless mainstream media outlets laundered and endorsed the utterly false claim that the documents from Hunter Biden’s laptop were “Russian disinformation,” only for officials to acknowledge once the harm was done that there was no evidence — zero — of Russian involvement.

Yet that is exactly what the overwhelming bulk of media outlets are doing again: asserting that Russia is behind these hacks despite having no evidence of its truth. The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro, host of the paper’s popular The Daily podcast, asked his colleague, national security reporter David Sanger, what evidence exists to assert that Russia did this. As Barbaro put it, even Sanger is “allowing that early conclusions could all be wrong, but that it's doubtful.” Indeed, Sanger acknowledged to Barbaro that they have no proof, asserting instead that the basis on which he is relying is that Russia possesses the sophistication to carry out such a hack (as do several other nation-states), along with claiming that the hack has what he calls the “markings” of Russian hackers.

But this tactic was exactly the same one used by former intelligence officials, echoed by these same media outlets, to circulate the false pre-election claim that the documents from Hunter Biden’s laptop were “Russian disinformation”: namely, they pronounced in lockstep, the material from Hunter’s laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” This was also exactly the same tactic used by the U.S. intelligence community in 2001 to falsely blame Iraq for the anthrax attacks, claiming that their chemical analysis revealed a substance that was “a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program.”

These media outlets will, if pressed, acknowledge their lack of proof that Russia did this. Despite this admitted lack of proof, media outlets are repeatedly stating Russian responsibility as proven fact.

“Scope of Russian Hacking Becomes Clear: Multiple U.S. Agencies Were Hit,” one New York Times headline proclaimed, and the first line of that article, co-written by Sanger, stated definitively: “The scope of a hacking engineered by one of Russia’s premier intelligence agencies became clearer on Monday.” The Washington Post deluged the public with identically certain headlines:

Nobody in the government has been as definitive in asserting Russian responsibility as corporate media outlets. Even Trump’s hawkish Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, crafted his accusation against Moscow with caveats and uncertainty: “I think it’s the case that now we can say pretty clearly that it was the Russians that engaged in this activity.”

If actual evidence ultimately emerges demonstrating Russian responsibility, it would not alter how dangerous it is that — less than twenty years after the Iraq WMD debacle and less than a couple of years after media endorsement of endless Russiagate falsehoods — the most influential media outlets continue to mindlessly peddle as Truth whatever the intelligence community feeds them, without the need to see any evidence that what they’re claiming is actually true. Even more alarmingly, large sectors of the public that venerate these outlets continue to believe that what they hear from them must be true, no matter how many times they betray that trust. The ease with which the CIA can disseminate whatever messaging it wants through friendly media outlets is stunning.

Second, the very idea that this hack could be compared to rogue and wildly aberrational events such as Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 attack is utterly laughable on its face. One has to be drowning in endless amounts of jingoistic self-delusion to believe that this hack — or, for that matter, the 2016 “election interference” — is a radical departure from international norms as opposed to a perfect reflection of them.

Just as was true of 2016 fake Facebook pages and Twitter bots, it is not an exaggeration to say that the U.S. Government engages in hacking attacks of this sort, and ones far more invasive, against virtually every country on the planet, including Russia, on a weekly basis. That does not mean that this kind of hacking is either justified or unjustified. It does mean, however, that depicting it as some particularly dastardly and incomparably immoral act that requires massive retaliation requires a degree of irrationality and gullibility that is bewildering to behold.

The NSA reporting enabled by Edward Snowden by itself proved that the NSA spies on virtually anyone it can. Indeed, after reviewing the archive back in 2013, I made the decision that I would not report on U.S. hacks of large adversary countries such as China and Russia because it was so commonplace for all of these countries to hack one another as aggressively and intrusively as they could that it was hardly newsworthy to report on this (the only exception was when there was a substantial reason to view such spying as independently newsworthy, such as Sweden’s partnering with NSA to spy on Russia in direct violation of the denials Swedish officials voiced to their public).

Other news outlets who had access to Snowden documents, particularly The New York Times, were not nearly as circumspect in exposing U.S. spying on large nation-state adversaries. As a result, there is ample proof published by those outlets (sometimes provoking Snowden’s strong objections) that the U.S. does exactly what Russia is alleged to have done here — and far worse.

“Even as the United States made a public case about the dangers of buying from [China’s] Huawei, classified documents show that the National Security Agency was creating its own back doors — directly into Huawei’s networks,” reported The New York Times’ David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth in 2013, adding that “the agency pried its way into the servers in Huawei’s sealed headquarters in Shenzhen, China’s industrial heart.”

In 2013, the Guardian revealed “an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow,” and added: “foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts.” Meanwhile, “Sweden has been a key partner for the United States in spying on Russia and its leadership, Swedish television said on Thursday,” noted Reuters, citing what one NSA document described as “a unique collection on high-priority Russian targets, such as leadership, internal politics.”

Other reports revealed that the U.S. had hacked into the Brazilian telecommunications system to collect data on the whole population, and was spying on Brazil’s key leaders (including then-President Dilma Rousseff) as well as its most important companies such as its oil giant Petrobras and its Ministry of Mines and Energy. The Washington Post reported: “The National Security Agency is gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cellphones around the world, according to top-secret documents and interviews with U.S. intelligence officials, enabling the agency to track the movements of individuals — and map their relationships — in ways that would have been previously unimaginable.” And on and on.

[One amazing though under-appreciated episode related to all this: the same New York Times reporter who revealed the details about massive NSA hacking of Chinese government and industry, Nicole Perlroth, subsequently urged (in tweets she has now deleted) that Snowden not be pardoned on the ground that, according to her, he revealed legitimate NSA spying on U.S. adversaries. In reality, it was actually she, Perlorth, not Snowden, who chose to expose NSA spying on China, provoking Snowden’s angry objections when she did so based on his view this was a violation of the framework he created for what should and should not be revealed; in other words, not only did Perlroth urge the criminal prosecution of a source on which she herself relied, an absolutely astonishing thing for any reporter to do, but so much worse, she did so by falsely accusing that source of doing something that she, Perlroth, had done herself: namely, reveal extensive U.S. hacking of China].

What all of this makes demonstrably clear is that only the most deluded and uninformed person could believe that Russian hacking of U.S. agencies and corporations — if it happened — is anything other than totally normal and common behavior between these countries. Harvard Law Professor and former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith, reviewing growing demands for retaliation, wrote in an excellent article last week entitled “Self-Delusion on the Russia Hack: The U.S. regularly hacks foreign governmental computer systems on a massive scale”:

The lack of self-awareness in these and similar reactions to the Russia breach is astounding. The U.S. government has no principled basis to complain about the Russia hack, much less retaliate for it with military means, since the U.S. government hacks foreign government networks on a huge scale every day. Indeed, a military response to the Russian hack would violate international law . . . .

As the revelations from leaks of information from Edward Snowden made plain, the United States regularly penetrates foreign governmental computer systems on a massive scale, often (as in the Russia hack) with the unwitting assistance of the private sector, for purposes of spying. It is almost certainly the world’s leader in this practice, probably by a lot. The Snowden documents suggested as much, as does the NSA’s probable budget. In 2016, after noting “problems with cyber intrusions from Russia,” Obama boasted that the United States has “more capacity than anybody … offensively” . . . .

Because of its own practices, the U.S. government has traditionally accepted the legitimacy of foreign governmental electronic spying in U.S. government networks. After the notorious Chinese hack of the Office of Personnel Management database, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said: “You have to kind of salute the Chinese for what they did. If we had the opportunity to do that, I don't think we'd hesitate for a minute.” The same Russian agency that appears to have carried out the hack revealed this week also hacked into unclassified emails in the White House and Defense and State Departments in 2014-2015. The Obama administration deemed it traditional espionage and did not retaliate. “It was information collection, which is what nation states—including the United States—do,” said Obama administration cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel this week.

But over the last four years, Americans, particularly those who feed on liberal media outlets, have been drowned in so much mythology about the U.S. and Russia that they have no capacity to critically assess the claims being made, and — just as they were led to believe about “Russia’s 2016 interference in Our Sacred Elections” — are easily convinced that what Russia did is some shocking and extreme crime the likes of which are rarely seen in international relations. In reality, their own government is the undisputed world champion in perpetrating these acts, and has been for years if not decades.

Third, these demands for “retaliation” are so reckless because they are almost always unaccompanied by any specifics. Even if Moscow’s responsibility is demonstrated, what is the U.S. supposed to do in response? If your answer is that they should hack Russia back, rest assured the NSA and CIA are always trying to hack Russia as much as it possibly can, long before this event.

If the answer is more sanctions, that would be just performative and pointless, aside from wildly hypocritical. Any reprisals more severe than that would be beyond reckless, particularly with the need to renew nuclear arms control agreements looming. And if you are someone demanding retaliation, do you believe that Russia, China, Brazil and all the other countries invaded by NSA hackers have the same right of retaliation against the U.S., or does the U.S. occupy a special place with special entitlements that all other countries lack?

What we have here, yet again, is the classic operation of the intelligence community feeding serious accusations about a nuclear-armed power to an eagerly gullible corporate media, with the media mindlessly disseminating it without evidence, all toward ratcheting up tensions between these two nuclear-armed powers and fortifying a mythology of the U.S. as grand victim but never perpetrator.

If you ever find yourself wondering how massive military budgets and a posture of Endless War are seemingly invulnerable to challenge, this pathological behavior — from a now-enduring union of the intelligence community, corporate media outlets, and the Democratic Party — provides one key piece of the puzzle.

Update, Dec. 24, 2020, 7:36 a.m. ET: Although the tweets from The New York Times’ Nicole Perlroth referenced above were deleted by her, as indicated, an alert reader notes that a Politico article at the time referenced part of my exchange with her, one prompted by anger from Washington Post reporters over an editorial by their own paper that argued against a Snowden pardon, even though that paper reported extensively on Snowden’s documents and won a Pulitzer for doing so:

The editorial is nothing if not a good excuse for a Twitter debate. Some journalists continued to air outrage yesterday over the editorial board’s defenestration of Snowden, while others either agreed with the board’s argument or at least defended its right to take a stand that it knew would no doubt rankle many in the Post’s newsroom. In one of the more notable exchanges, New York Times reporter cybersecurity reporter Nicole Perlroth tangled with Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Snowden/NSA story for The Guardian.

Perlroth: “Gotta say I agree w/ wapo. @Snowden leaked tens of thousands of docs that had nothing to do with privacy violations.” http://bit.ly/2cLPeLY

Greenwald: “They can start an august club: Journalists In Favor of Criminal Prosecution For Our Sources” http://bit.ly/2cLLIRz

That’s precisely what I was referencing here. It’s utterly repugnant that Perlroth advocated that her own source be imprisoned on the ground that he leaked documents “that had nothing to do with privacy violations” when it was she, Perlroth, who decided to reveal details of NSA spying on China, angering Snowden in the process. Clicking on the above link to her tweet demonstrates that she since deleted it.

One last point: there is an outstanding op-ed in Thursday’s New York Times about anger over the alleged Russian hack by Paul Kolbe, who served as a senior CIA clandestine operative for 25 years and is now director of the Intelligence Project at Harvard Kennedy School, entitled “With Hacking, the United States Needs to Stop Playing the Victim.” It details that “the United States is, of course, engaged in the same type of operations at an even grander scale” and therefore “it’s time for the United States to stop acting surprised and stop posturing.”

#glenn greenwald #russia #russiagate #russian hack #russian hackers #joe biden #joseph biden #ww3

5 notes · View notes

opedguy · 5 years ago

Text

Comey’s Criminal FBI Enterprise

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), July 27, 2020.--When 60-year-old FBI James Comey was fired by 74-year-old President Donald Trump May 9, 2017, no one, certainly not partisan Democrats, imagined the breadth of his criminal activities. Instead of breathing a sigh of relief, Democrats screamed about “obstruction of justice,” pressuring former Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein to appoint former FBI Director Robert Mueller as Special Counsel May 17, 2017. Trump fired Comey as he said then for being a “dirty cop,” wiretapping his campaign based on 72-year-old former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s paid opposition research AKA “the Steele Dossier.” Comey opened an illegal counterintelligence investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign when given the Dossier by the late Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) in July of 2016. Both Comey and McCain knew that the contents of the Steele Dossier were utter rubbish and used it anyway.

Four years later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chairman of the Senate Judidciary Committee, has been horrified by Comey’s criminal behavior, using the Steele Dossier to dupe the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] Court with phony probable cause to wiretap Trump’s campaign. Comey operated under orders from former President Barack Obama, former Vice President Joe Biden, former Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to do anything possible to sabotage Trump’s 2016, helping Hillary become president. Graham’s been releasing declassified documents related to Operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey’s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. A document released today proves that Steele’s “sub-source” was American, not Russian.

Armed with her Steele Dossier, Hillary accused Trump in the Oct. 19, 2016 in the final presidential debate in Las Vegas of being a “Putin puppet.” Steele’s Dossier, among other things, accused Trump of being a Russian asset, controlled by the Kremlin due to nefarious business dealings. Turns out that Steele actually had no contacts inside the Kremlin but pretended he had inside Russian contacts. “The Russian sub-source who was American-based—not Russian based—told Christopher Steele, ‘here’s what I got, it’s bar talk, it’s rumor, it’s innuendo, it’s not really reliable,’ and what did Christopher Steele do with that? He turned into a Tom Clancy novel, he sold it to the FBI, the sold it to the FISA Court, to get a warrant against Carter Page,” Graham said. Graham’s new documents prove that the Steele Dossier was entirely fake, something Comey, McCain and others knew at the time.

Partisan Democrats in the House and Senate and their friend at the New York Times and Washington Post ran with the Russian hoax story out of pure politics to get back at Trump for running against Hillary and winning the White House. While Graham’s trying to connect the dots, he’s still mired in the minutia related to the Steele Dossier. “Not only did the FBI lie to the court about the reliability of the Steele Dossier, they also lied to Congress, and that’s a separate crime,” Graham said. Department of Justice Inspector General [IG] Michael Horowitz found 17 instances of misrepresentations to the FISA Court. Horowitz could not say in his Dec. 9, 2019 report that politics played the primary motive in spying on the Trump campaign. Comey was so drunk with his own power as FBI Director, he thought he could break the FISA Court law and get away with it.

Democrats, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC and others, spent over three years writing stories about Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. New revelations about the content to the Steele Dossier, the main probable cause for Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the 22-month, $40 million Mueller investigation has now been upended. Operation Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation proves that politics, not facts or evidence, determined how U.S. laws were broken to advance political agendas. “I find it impossible to believe that McCabe [former Deputy FBI Director] and Comey were not made aware of this 40-page memo,” Graham said. “Anybody that knew that the Russian dossier was unreliable and continued to get a warrant against Carter Page on that document should go to jail for defrauding the court,” Graham said.

When Graham adds up all the real evidence on the Steele Dossier, it shows a monstrous conspiracy in the FBI led by Comey to sabotage the Trump campaign before Nov. 8, 2016 victory and during his first term. Mueller spent nearly two hears and $40 million to find out there was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. But far more egregious, Democrats, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets continued the Russian hoax, even after they were told there was nothing there. Inside Comey’s FBI, he ran the nation’s premier law enforcement agency as his private political consulting firm to get rid of Trump. “The FBI continues to lie to the court, getting new warrants based on the dossier in April and June in 2017. After they knew it was a bunch of garbage, the continued to use it anyway,” Graham said. “Somebody needs to go to jail.”

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

0 notes

paulbenedictblog · 5 years ago

Text

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

Usa today DNC announces date for November Democratic debate to be held in Georgia

Usa today

Savannah Behrmann, USA TODAY Published 6: 53 p.m. ET Oct. 8, 2019 | Updated 12: 23 p.m. ET Oct. 9, 2019

The 2020 election is nearing and with that, comes the caucuses and basic elections. However what’s the adaptation? Fair the FAQs, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The fifth Democratic basic debate could be held Nov. 20 in Georgia and co-hosted by MSNBC and The Washington Put up, the Democratic National Convention announced Tuesday.

The controversy could be aired continue to exist MSNBC and across the Radio One community, to boot to on-line for NBC Data and MSNBC and in the course of the Put up's web and cell apps.

NBC Data stated eight candidates in the orderly discipline hang licensed. The venue, layout and moderators hang but to be announced.

The candidates are: used Vice President Joe Biden; Sen. Cory Booker of Novel Jersey; South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Sen. Kamala Harris of California; Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont; billionaire activist Tom Steyer; Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang.

Inclined Housing and City Pattern Secretary Julián Castro, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Hawaii Ranking. Tulsi Gabbard and used Texas Ranking. Beto O'Rourke, all of whom licensed for the debate Oct. 15, hang now not but licensed for November's match.

To qualify for the November debate, candidates must win person donations from a minimal of 165,000 folks, consisting of a minimal of 600 irregular donors in a minimal of 20 states.Right here's up from the old requirement of 130,000 donors and a minimal of 400 donors in 20 states, which had been the marks diagram for the September and October debates.

The polling threshold has also been bumped up nonetheless involves one more category of polls that could be damaged-down to qualify. Candidates must stand at 3% or elevated in a minimal of 4 authorized national or early verbalize polls. Or they can reach 5% or elevated in two early verbalize polls. Early states embody Iowa, Novel Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

Candidates must meet the polling and fundraising thresholds by Nov. 13 at 11: 59 p.m.

The DNC listed 15 polls this will seemingly accept for qualifying.

Stacey Abrams, a used gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, stated she is “overjoyed” the controversy is being hosted in "the premier battleground verbalize up and down the ballot, and we survey forward to welcoming the candidates on Nov. 20.”

I’m overjoyed that next month’s Democratic presidential debate could be held in Georgia. We're the premier battleground verbalize up and down the ballot, and we survey forward to welcoming the candidates on November 20. #gapol

— Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams) October 8, 2019

Contributing: Jeanine Santucci

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/data/politics/elections/2019/10/08/democratic-debate-november-debate-held-georgia-msnbc/3913464002/

0 notes

kartiavelino · 6 years ago

Text

‘Judge Jerry’ Springer is coming to your TV next fall

Jerry Springer is taking you to court docket. Springer, 74, will host a brand new syndicated daytime courtroom present known as “Choose Jerry,” The Put up has realized. The sequence, produced by NBCUniversal, will deal with small-claims instances, sources say. It’s focused to premiere next fall, following the 28th and ultimate season of Springer’s over-the-top daytime program, “The Jerry Springer Present,” infamous for its outlandish segments — “I’m Completely satisfied I Lower off My Legs!”, “You Slept with My Stripper Sister!” — and fistfights between lowbrow company. It even impressed a musical, “Jerry Springer: The Opera.” “Choose Jerry” will characteristic Springer — a former lawyer, information anchor and politician — sporting a choose’s gown and seated behind a desk. It’s anticipated to incorporate some components of his notoriously rowdy present program, together with a raucous, fist-pumping studio viewers breaking into chants of “Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!” and Springer ending the present along with his signature line, “Maintain your self, and one another.” Like different daytime court docket exhibits, together with Judy Sheindlin’s top-rated “Choose Judy,” “Choose Jerry” will characteristic a bailiff and might be taped in a courtroom setting, with two litigants squaring off towards one another and Springer presiding over the instances and rendering a verdict. The present might be taped in Stamford, Conn., which has been the longtime studio house of “Jerry Springer” and NBCUniversal’s different daytime exhibits, “Steve Wilkos” and “Maury.” “Choose Jerry” is anticipated to air in the identical time slots as “Jerry Springer,” which at the moment airs at three p.m. weekdays on WPIX/Channel 11 in New York Metropolis. It’s going to be a part of a crowded docket of TV court docket exhibits, together with “The Individuals’s Court docket” (which additionally tapes in Stamford), “Choose Hatchett,” “Choose Mathis,” “Scorching Bench” (created and produced by Sheindlin), “Divorce Court docket,” “Caught in Windfall,” “Lauren Lake’s Paternity Court docket” and “Justice with Choose Mablean.” “Choose Jerry” marks the next TV chapter for Springer, who graduated from Forest Hills HS, earned a legislation diploma from Northwestern College and, in 1968, was a marketing campaign adviser to Robert F. Kennedy. In 1971, he was elected to Cincinnati’s Metropolis Council after which served as the town’s mayor for one yr. In 1982, he was employed as a political reporter/commentator by Cincinnati’s WLWT-TV, turning into its top-rated information anchor. In 1997, on the top of “The Jerry Springer Present,” he joined WMAQ-TV in Chicago as a information commentator. He’s a frequent political commentator, totally on MSNBC. NBCUniversal officers had no remark. Share this: https://nypost.com/2018/10/22/judge-jerry-springer-is-coming-to-your-tv-next-fall/ The post ‘Judge Jerry’ Springer is coming to your TV next fall appeared first on My style by Kartia. https://www.kartiavelino.com/2018/10/judge-jerry-springer-is-coming-to-your-tv-next-fall.html

0 notes

conservativeamericatoday · 7 years ago

Video

youtube

You just can't believe everything that liberal media says. Subscribe us now to get the REAL NEWS everyday. Click Here To Subscribe: https://goo.gl/Jak4Sa Buy a Tshirt/Mug to support us - https://goo.gl/LF3cGL Liberal Tears Mug - https://goo.gl/GZg6s9 "WHITE, STRAIGHT, REPUBLICAN, MALE" Tshirt - https://goo.gl/MzXWaW So it turns out that Susan Rice is exactly the LIAR we all knew she was. It turns out she LIED when she told CNN earlier this year that she did not unmask Donald Trump campaign staff during the election. Well, forget that because she just gave a private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee and guess what…She admitted that she did unmask Trump campaign members during the election. But wait, y’all…There’s more! Rice claimed her reason for unmasking Trump officials was not because of Russia. Instead, it was because she was investigating why a Prince of the United Arab Emirates was visiting with Kushner, Bannon, and Flynn without telling Obama first. Recommended Keywords Susan Rice Trump’s Campaign - susan rice just admitted the sick thing she did to trump’s campaign during the election. Susan rice husband ian cameron abc news - Start making your own internet bussines today Joe biden susan rice unmask Video Download 3GP, MP4, HD MP4, And Watch joe biden susan rice unmask Video Why did Susan Rice unmask the identity of American citizens # - 04/03/17 10:22 PM Re: Breaking: Susan Rice Unmasked Trump Team If Susan Rice unmasked Michael Flynn, she illegitimately assumed an authority that belongs to the FBI, CIA, and NSA Susan rice trump unmasking scandal - Start making your own internet bussines today 4 hours ago - Even as Democrats claim Susan Rice did nothing wrong with 'unmasking', Brit Hume is hesitant to let the 'advisor' off the hook quite so easily Andrew Napolitano Did Obama spy on Trump susan rice on trump campaign surveillance: "i know nothing about this. susan rice lied about unmasking trump campaign members, media lauds her. Latest news on Donald Trump's Twitter updates, North Korea conflict and Russia ties plus more on Trump's wife Melania, travel ban and fake news claims Rand Paul appeared on MSNBC Morning Joe and cited his opinion of what we have learned so far about Susan Rice unmasking innocent Americans Susan Rice Obama Honors 21 Americans With Presidential Medal of Freedom 3 days ago - On Susan Rice unmasking officials in the Trump campaign, @realDonaldTrump says its "Just the tip of the Iceberg" pic Obama rice trump - Start making your own internet bussines today Did Susan Rice Unmask Names For Political Reasons Susan Rice Unmasking Trump's Claims Did Susan Rice unmask Trump officials for political purposes More: Susan Rice Trump Russia House Intelligence Committee Tags: Devin Nunes GOP intelligence Richard Burr Russia Samantha Power Susan Rice trump unmasking Rand Paul: Ask Susan Rice under oath Susan Rice Caught Lying About Benghazi Rep Trey Gowdy Whistleblower Questioning - YouTube SUSAN RICE MICHAEL FLYNN (Susan Rice insieme a Michael Flynn, dimessosi da consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale) But thanks to Susan Rice and Obama, it's probably already a lesson learned On Susan Rice and Trump's House of Cards (April 5, 2017)April 6, 2017Similar post Ireland's premier breaking news website providing up to the minute news and sports reports judge jeanine pirro on susan rice ‘unmasking’ scandal of trump campaign officials. "we did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the trump campaign and the russians. it turns out she lied when she told cnn earlier this year that she did not unmask donald trump campaign staff during the election...

#IFTTT #YouTube

0 notes

opedguy · 5 years ago

Text

Shep Smith Pushed Out at Fox News

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Oct. 13, 2019.--Pushed out of Fox News after 23 years, 55-year-old day-time anchor Shepard Smith stunned his colleagues announcing Oct. 12 he would leave the network. Shep came up the Fox News ranks at the same time as Anderson Cooper at CNN, vying for ratings as the two networks competed in the cutthroat cable news business. Shep joined Fox News at its inception in 1997, mirroring the network’s conservative voice, a couter-balance to CNN’s more liberal reporting. At the time Shep started at Fox News, Bernard Shaw anchored and served as managing director of CNN’s nightly news. Despite CNN’s liberal perspective, Shaw set the standard of nonpartisan news in the tradition of CBS’s Walter Cronkite who retired in 1981, handing the baton to Dan Rather. Since 73-year-old President Donald Trump was elected, Shep turned away from nonpartisan reporting, letting his animus get the better of him.

When he left Fox News yesterday, Shep routinely slammed everything Trump, indistinguishable from Anderson Cooper at CNN or MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Hayes and the whole day-to-nighttime lineup. Listening to Shep’s daytime show was indistinguishable from his counterparts on CNN or MSNBC. When Shep’s dust-up occurred Sept. 25 with nighttime host Tucker Carlson, calling the critique of his legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano “repugnant,” you knew Shep was not long for the job. Tucker challenged Napolitano’s analysis of Trump’s impending impeachment, telling Shep that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors. When Tucker’s legal expert Joe DiGenova called Napolitano a “fool,” Shep took it personally, calling it “repugnant.” DiGenova simply said Napolitano lacked the experience to conclude anything about federal crimes.

Shep’s statement to the media was clearly whitewashed by his non-compete and severance agreement. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter,” Smith said on his last broadcast Friday. What’s truly remarkable is that Shep’s tenure at Fox lasted so long with his show turning into a daily Trump-bashing affair, the same as CNN and MSNBC. In today’s atmosphere, political neutrality doesn’t exist in even late-night entertainment, where CBS’s host Stephen Colbert s set the tone, slamming Trump nightly for better audience share. When that brought him ratings, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel and NBC’s Jimmy Fallon followed suit, using a good part of their monologues ripping Trump. When political bias seeps into daily-and-nightly news broadcasts, it robs the audience of any real capacity to learn anything factual about news stories.

Fox News president and executive editor Jay Wallace praised Shep for his professionalism. “Shep is one of the premier newscasters of his generation and his extraordinary body of work is among the finest journalism in the industry,” said Wallace, not acknowledging that Shep’s report took an anti-Trump turn. After requesting that I stay, they graciously obliged . . . “ Smith said, referring to his resignation from Fox News. Wallace talks about Shep’s “finest journalism” but doesn’t admit he had become prejudiced against Trump. Shep and Napolitano spent the better part of three years find everything possible wrong with Trump. Both tried-and-convicted Trump during the 22-month, $30 million Robert Mueller Special Counsel investigation, agreeing with the New York Times and Washington Post, covering one fake-story after another, proving Trump colluded with Russia.

Shep’s world started to crumble once Mueller delivered his final report March 23, disappointing the anti-Trump press and Democrat Party, essentially clearing him of coordinating with Russian to win the 2016 presidential election. Yet day-after-day, Shep and Napolitano would routinely citing fake news stories in the liberal press, accusing Trump of everything but the kitchen sink. “While this day is especially difficult as his former producer, we respect his decision and are deeply grateful for his immense contributions to the entire network,” Wallace said. What Wallace didn’t say is that Fox News was the first to place its faith in a gay journalist, then followed CNN with Anderson Cooper. Both cable news networks broke new ground putting gay news hosts on the air. While Cooper remained faithful to CNN, Shep betrayed Fox News’s conservative bent.

Resigning from Fox News, Shep threw his colleagues for a loop, despite seeing the handwriting on the walls. “I’m Neil Cavuto and, like you, I’m a little stunned and a little heartbroken. I don’t know what to say,” said Cavuto, acting blindsided. If you paid attention Sept. 25 to the brouhaha with Tucker Carlson, you knew that Smith was no longer comfortable at the network. “I’m just trying to compile my thoughts too, Neil, I walked out her to do the hit and suddenly got hit by a subway train. Holy mackeral,” said Fox New White House correspondent John Roberts. Yet every one of Smith’s colleagues knew that he used his daytime show to slam Trump. Smith ridiculed Trump’s oft-reported statement about “fake news. “ “He [Trump] decries fake news that isn’t and disseminates fake news that is,” said Shep, not admitting that he did the same thing citing fake news in the New York Times and Washington Post.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

0 notes

njawaidofficial · 7 years ago

Text

'American Horror Story: Cult' Premiere Recap | Ryan Murphy on Election Night

http://styleveryday.com/2017/09/06/american-horror-story-cult-premiere-recap-ryan-murphy-on-election-night/

'American Horror Story: Cult' Premiere Recap | Ryan Murphy on Election Night

[Warning: This story contains spoilers from the premiere of FX’s American Horror Story: Cult.]

The first moment of American Horror Story: Cult is chill-inducing.

“I am running for president of the United States!” announces Donald Trump.

“I am running for president of the United States!” echoes Hillary Clinton.

No matter what side of the aisle, the flashback footage of the actual 2016 presidential campaign is an eerie place-setter, a reminder of how far away that moment in history feels in today’s divided America.

As promised, the seventh season of Ryan Murphy’s FX anthology series kicks off with a minute-long ramp up to 2016 election night. Using real footage of then-candidates Trump and Clinton, highlights down memory lane include mentions of Trump’s wall, Clinton’s emails and a growing “palpable fear” as protestors on both sides clash. “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s like incredible,” Trump says. The statement, so attacked at the time, now serves as a reminder that hindsight is 20-20.

Cult opens on Nov. 8, 2016.

Kai Anderson (Evan Peters) is sitting on the edge of his basement couch listening to Fox News as the chuckling anchors declare Trump the 45th president of the United States, winner of the most “unreal” and “surreal” election America has ever seen.

“The revolution has begun,” Kai says softly. He then humps his big-screen TV, his blue hair thrusting in the air. “Fuck you world!” he screams before chanting “USA! USA!”

Over at the Mayfair-Richards’ house, Ally (Sarah Paulson), her wife Ivy (Alison Pill), young son Oz and their liberal-leaning friends are holding out hope, glued to MSNBC. “I won’t believe anything until I hear Rachel Maddow say it, she’s the only one I trust,” says Ally before Pennsylvania is called. “It’s the politics of fear, it always works,” says her stunned friend, the Asian-American head council member in the show’s Michigan set town, population 10,000.

When MSNBC announces Clinton’s concession phone call, Ally watches with tears in her eyes as Trump takes the stage, horror music at full swell. “Go to hell Huffington Post! Fuck you Nate Silver!” screams Ally as she falls, debilitated, to her knees. “Oh God, how could they have been so wrong about this!”

But 10,000 is also the amount of votes Clinton is losing to Trump in their swing state. “You want to know who to get mad at for this? Our own state of Michigan. She’s losing by 10,000 votes. That’s the size of this town. And who is at 40,000 votes and counting? Jill Stein.” (In Michigan, Trump defeated Clinton by 10,704 votes, while the Green Party candidate took in 51,463 votes.)

Later, it will be revealed that much to Ivy’s dismay, Ally quietly voted for Stein — Murphy shining his season-seven spotlight on one parcel of American voters forced to face their own complicity in the election results. The council member also screams at his wife for not voting: “Look at our friends on the couch and tell them that they might not be able to maintain their rights as a married couple because you were too busy playing on Etsy to go vote!”

Kai, meanwhile, is busy mashing up bags of Cheetos in a blender, using the crumbs as orange makeup while he practices his “yuge” impression of Trump in the mirror. His sister, Winter Anderson (Billie Lourd) devoted her college semester to campaigning for Clinton. “She was supposed to win, is this really happening?” the depressed co-ed tells a friend before being interrupted by Kai. He then asks her to link pinky fingers. “I’m just so scared now,” she says. “Everyone is,” he replies with a smile.

Then comes the opening credits sequence — the mashup of phobias, Trump and Clinton masks and the franchise’s theme song with a patriotic twists ends with two hands, pinky-swearing, in handcuffs — and Cult truly begins.

“How the show begins on election night, pro or con, I think everybody can relate to the feeling of that evening, and that was the launch of the season,” Murphy said at a recent press event, attended by The Hollywood Reporter. On Sept. 1, when Clinton was the presumed winner, Murphy decided to use the election as a jumping-off point to explore how the cult of personality and leaders such as Charles Manson rise up within a disenfranchised community. After Trump’s stunning win, when Murphy and his writers began to plot the season in December, they changed the opening scene. “It was very easily switched because pro or con, either candidate, Evan’s character, who plays somebody who rises up because of anger in our country, was always the same.”

Murphy went on to explain that despite what many people may think — including the show’s conservative fans who have tweeted at Murphy that they plan to quit watching — Cult is not about Trump, or Clinton.

One thing the season is about is a “growing sense of anxiety in our culture,” something Murphy explores through Ally’s range of irrational phobias, which are re-triggered after the traumatic election night similar to when she was nearly crippled by her anxieties after 9/11. She has a fear of clowns — triggered by her son reading a Twisty the Clown comic book — blood, holes and confined spaces, to name a few. Later in the episode, when Oz sees a gaggle of clowns murdering their neighbors, the council leader (Tim Kang) and his wife, it’s unclear if he suffers from the same phobias as his mother, or if a Purge-inspired gang of killers is truly on the loose in this idyllic suburb. [At the end of the episode, Ivy reveals the name of their neighbors to be the Changs. Roanoke viewers will remember the Chang family — providing an Easter egg and perhaps the second clue, in addition to Freak Show‘s Twisty cameo, that Cult is indeed within the AHS universe.]

“One of the things that I personally experienced after this election was a wild increase in my life in anxiety,” said Murphy. “I think a lot of people can relate to that, no matter what side you’re on, because there seemed to be such a painful discourse going on, and everything seemed to be at Mach 4 level. You could feel it in the news. You can feel it now when you watch it. We’re on the brink of nuclear war one week, and then, the next week we’re on to something else equally extreme. I want to lean into the escalation of fear in our culture.”

That escalation is embodied in Kai, who delivers a verbose speech to his town’s council on why fear and chaos should reign. His interpretation is deemed delusional by the council. “I’m glad you 4Chan guys feel empowered to join the rest of us in civil society now that Papa Bear Trump is telling you it’s OK,” says that same councilmen from Ally and Ivy’s house, laughing at Kai’s emergence from his “parent’s basement.” But Kai has indeed tapped into the pervading fear surrounding them. He baits a group of Mexicans into beating him up, so he can use the scenario to his own political advantage. And he throws a drink on the lesbian couple he encounters on the street, Ally and Ivy.

As the restaurant owners and their white privilege become a target of Murphy’s satire, they also represent the Americans who long for the days of President Barack Obama. “For the first time I was included in the discussion, in the world,” Ally tells her shrink, played by Cheyenne Jackson.

“Our feeling is that everybody lost their shit after the election — Republican or Democrat — and everybody’s still losing their shit, and nobody’s really figured out from either side where to put those feelings,” Murphy explained. “[This season] is about somebody who has the wherewithal to put their finger up in the wind and see that that’s what’s happening and is using that to rise up and form power. Using people’s vulnerabilities about how they’re afraid and they don’t know where to turn, and they feel like the world is on fire.”

Though the season has plenty of satire on both sides — “I think that we’ve been very careful to be fair,” said Murphy, who laughed at Ally fighting her clown demons with bottles of rosé — the showrunner said he wanted Kai’s Cheetos-happy reaction to the election to represent the blindness many in this country had leading up to Trump’s election. (And yes, those were real Cheetos.)

“Evan really put real Cheetos on his face, but it was also meant to be a little bit deeper,” Murphy explained. “The idea that you can make fun of Trump all that you want to, and you can claim that he’s absolutely a ridiculous figure, which many people do, but there is some anger in the country and passion in the country that he has tapped into that elevates him from a cartoon figure to someone to be taken seriously, in my book.”

That anger and how it has the power to manipulate is truly what the season is all about.

“Evan’s character was making that statement and rubbing it into Billie Lourd’s face, that she really was looking in the wrong direction,” he explained. “You felt it leading up to the election with all the liberal news. The laughter and cackling that all of the liberal news shows would have about that group of people in our culture, making fun of them, talking about then in a negative way, which led to the shock of, ‘Oh, they haven’t been taking these people seriously. They’re not jokes. There’s something go on there.’ That’s what that scene is about.”

The premiere sets the stage for Ally and Kai to again cross paths, as the couple hires Winter as a nanny for Oz. Winter and Kai will also continue to reveal themselves in mysterious ways, but after screening the first three episodes, it’s unclear how the characters will seemingly be joining Kai’s yet-to-be-revealed cult.

Throughout the season, Peters will portray six different cult leaders through flashbacks, including Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones and even Andy Warhol. And Trump supporter Kai elevates himself from running for city council to running for the Senate. “I think he’s really a young genius,” said Murphy. “He has really taken the part seriously, and done a lot of research about cults and the rise of fascism, and what does that take, and how do you speak to crowds, and how do you manipulate people?”

American Horror Story

#American #Cult #Election #Horror #Murphy #Night #Premiere #Recap #Ryan #Story

0 notes