X 22 report – [DS] MSM FISA Narrative Control What do they fear most

Advertisements

The Sussexes are attacking the BRF

The Sussexes are attacking the BRF

Harry and Meghan’s “sources” talked to the CNN and basically said they are victims and they are the only ones who can save the monarchy:

“They added that any sibling or person seeing that would of course be concerned, but said the tabloids and the briefings by so-called “palace insiders and friends” are classic examples of anti-Prince Harry and Meghan hysteria.

The source added that the…

View On WordPress

The Sussexes are attacking the BRF

Harry and Meghan’s “sources” talked to the CNN and basically said they are victims and they are the only ones who can save the monarchy:

“They added that any sibling or person seeing that would of course be concerned, but said the tabloids and the briefings by so-called “palace insiders and friends” are classic examples of anti-Prince Harry and Meghan hysteria.

The source added that the institution around the British royal family is full of people afraid of and inexperienced at how to best help harness and deploy the value of the royal couple who, they said, have single-handedly modernized the monarchy.”

 

Good Morning Anon! I had to take this one first, this is hysterical!  Why would they do this? They are delusional and Sunshine Sachs went right to the Trump Derangement Syndrome Network, Fake NEWS CNN.  Because after all crazy Clinton dictates to them, you know the Clinton News Network also represented by Sunshine Sachs.

BP must be going bonkers and I bet a chair has been thrown!  What losers to bite the hand that feeds them their cushy privileged lifestyle.

Thank you, Sarri for the greatest laugh since these two coupled up! 🌸😎🥰🤣🤣

Anon submitted: DM-Trump/Wall- Fake News

Anon submitted: DM-Trump/Wall- Fake News

EXCLUSIVE: Trump flew into rage and shouted ‘Why the f**k would we do this?’ after Drudge Report said U.S. was PAYING Mexico $4.8 billion instead of collecting border wall money – as he told aides ‘This is the stupidest s**t you’ve ever done’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7537749/Trump-flew-rage-shouted-f-k-Mexico-wall-money-fell-apart.html

[contentcards url=”https://www.dailymail.co.uk…

View On WordPress

Anon submitted: DM-Trump/Wall- Fake News

EXCLUSIVE: Trump flew into rage and shouted ‘Why the f**k would we do this?’ after Drudge Report said U.S. was PAYING Mexico $4.8 billion instead of collecting border wall money – as he told aides ‘This is the stupidest s**t you’ve ever done’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7537749/Trump-flew-rage-shouted-f-k-Mexico-wall-money-fell-apart.html

FAKE NEWS!

I’m calling bullshit on this story!

 

How much does it cost to send 26,000 Mexican Soldiers to the southern border? It’s all part of building the wall.

Come legally and want to love your new country.  Remember 9/11, keep out terrorists and illegal drugs out of our country.  Don’t let pedos steal, rape, murder your kids. Don’t fall for human traffickers! Say no to Slavery!

 

How would they know what Trump said? Don’t believe everything you read. Shifty Schiff made stories up, and I would be careful of what being said by who.

Lowest unemployment since 1969! God bless Trump!

The Times should be ashamed

LAW & THE COURTS

The Ongoing Smear Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh

By 

THE EDITORS

September 16, 2019 5:25 PM

Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, September 4, 2018. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

The New York Times had a significant story to tell about Brett Kavanaugh. It’s this: In a new book, the Times reporters produced new evidence that profoundly undermined the central claims against Kavanaugh. Leland Keyser — Christine Blasey Ford’s friend and the person Ford herself testified was also at the party where Ford claimed Kavanaugh assaulted her — has stated on the record that she doesn’t have “any confidence” in Ford’s story.

Not only does she not recall the specific party at issue, she doesn’t recall “any others like it.” Moreover, Keyser maintains this recollection in spite of a determined effort by old friends to get her to change her testimony — a pressure campaign that Keyser admirably resisted.

But that’s not the story the New York Times chose to tell. Instead, this weekend it ran an extended piece that breathlessly asserts that there exists a new claim against Kavanaugh. The original story reported that a man named Max Stier alleged that “friends” pushed Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female student. Hours later — only after Democrats issued furious denunciations of Kavanaugh — did the Times add a rather significant editor’s note. The female student “declined to be interviewed,” and her “friends say that she does not recall the incident.”

In other words, “Never mind.” But even that editor’s note is incomplete. It turns out that Max Stier served as one of Bill Clinton’s lawyers during the Starr investigation, a fact that’s at least relevant to the existence of partisan bias.

The New York Times’s disgraceful weekend performance is a reminder that the media performed abysmally during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. Ronan Farrow had accumulated an enormous amount of capital reporting thoroughly-researched and well-corroborated claims of sexual abuse that helped launch the #MeToo movement. He squandered that reputation for scrupulosity by reporting Deborah Ramirez’s claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself in spite of the total absence of corroborating evidence and in spite of evidence Ramirez herself was unsure of her memories.

But for sheer malice nothing can match the speed and ferocity with which reporters accepted the facially-ludicrous rape story pushed by Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick. She claimed that she saw Kavanaugh “waiting his turn” for a gang rape and spiking punch to facilitate gang rapes. The story was never remotely plausible, but that didn’t stop media figures from shaming anyone who expressed public doubts on Twitter.

Perhaps the nadir of the whole affair is when 

Vox

 helped “explain the news” by publishing a piece arguing that the John Hughes movie 

Sixteen Candles

 provided “important context” for the Kavanaugh allegations. In the 1980s, you see, there was a different “cultural understanding” about gang rape.

No, there wasn’t. Gang rape was a terrible crime then, just as it is a terrible crime now. Notably, when Julie Swetnick’s claims collapsed during an MSNBC interview, many of the same media figures who trumpeted the claims and scorned all doubts fell silent. They felt no need to retract their outrage or to apologize for their scorn. Instead, they shifted their fire to claiming that Brett Kavanaugh was just too angry when he was accused of gang rape, sexual assault, and indecent exposure.

Against this backdrop, the Democrats calling for impeaching Kavanaugh — including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris — are disgracing themselves. The claims against Kavanaugh never stood up to scrutiny, and the evidence that has emerged since the hearings last fall has only served to undercut further the claims against him.

In a speech earlier this year, Ford’s attorney Debra Katz admitted to the partisanship that at least in part motivated her client: They wanted to put an “asterisk” next to his name. “When he takes a scalpel to 

Roe v. Wade

,” she said, “we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

The key word there is Roe. The fierce progressive dedication to abortion rights hovers over this entire affair. And so, instead of engaging in a necessary bout of soul-searching after their abysmal performance last year, the media continue their search-and-destroy mission. Last year, they tried to block Brett Kavanaugh. Now they try to bully him. The Times should be ashamed.

Thank you anon for your submittal, I agree with this. 🌸😎🥰 Time to start Sue! 

Here we go again. Failing NYT!

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

 

According to the Times, Stier “notified senators and the FBI about this account, but the FBI did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly.”

/Why did he decline to discuss it publicly if he was confident in his words?/ 

But, the Times’ article conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book also found that the female student in question denied any knowledge of the alleged episode.

“The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” observed The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”

“Omitting these facts from the @nytimes story is one of worst cases of journalistic malpractice that I can recall,” wrote the National Review’s Washington correspondent, John McCormack on Twitter.

You read the BlueShare memo, and it says whatever it takes! Which I’m not thrilled with any SuperPac right now. 

It’s slander and libel for a News outlet to publish that crap. 

Talk about late hits, where was this information when he was going through hearings?  The lady testifying against him admitted she made it up. Why would anyone believe anything these clowns have to say? 

Some people will believe this nonsense, like here on tumblr. 

Thank you anon, 🌸😎😘