Australian News Service Laughs at U.S. Media Hypocrisy During G7 Where Mumbling Fool Biden is Laughing Stock of World Leaders – The Last Refuge – Trump:The American Years

https://americafirst.blog/2021/06/13/australian-news-service-laughs-at-u-s-media-hypocrisy-during-g7-where-mumbling-fool-biden-is-laughing-stock-of-world-leaders-the-last-refuge/

Australian Sky News pundits laugh at how the U.S. corporate media hype the JoeBama administration while the world laughs at the G7 pantomime on display.At least one news agency is honest….

…video…

Source: Australian News Service Laughs at U.S. Media Hypocrisy During G7 Where Mumbling Fool Biden is Laughing Stock of World Leaders – The Last Refuge

‘Proven right’: Trump savors post-presidency vindication streak

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/06/12/proven-right-trump-savors-post-presidency-vindication-streak/
The 45th president is enjoying a run of belated validation on a series of controversial issues, including: the Covid lab-leak theory, Russian bounties, Lafayette Park police tactics, hydroxychloroquine, and his words to a Georgia election investigator. Go to Source Author: {Just The News}… Read more

SHAMEFUL! Facebook Skewered For Citing Disgraced Expert In Fact-Checks | PA Pundits – International

https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/06/12/shameful-facebook-skewered-for-citing-disgraced-expert-in-fact-checks/

By Alexander Hall ~

So-called experts advising Big Tech are experiencing a crisis of credibility as the once-condemned laboratory leak theory rises in popularity.

Big Tech’s initiative that Americans must listen to the experts has sounded more ridiculous and ill-informed by the day. RedState Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar reported in a June 11 blog: “The man who worked on coronaviruses with Wuhan Institute of Virology’s ‘Bat Woman’ Dr. Shi Zhengli as long ago as 2013, whose company gave WIV $800,000 in funding to study bat coronaviruses from 2014-2019, and who served as a Facebook COVID fact-checker, is bitterly clinging to the narrative that the pandemic originated at the wet market in Wuhan.”

The same article recounted how the aforementioned expert cited in fact-checking, EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, also reportedly spoke absurdities during a 60 Minutes interview:

Daszak, incredibly, was a member of the [World Health Organization] “mission,” and believes that the group made a big discovery during their time in China – the 1,000-mile ‘pathway’ the virus took from bat caves in southern China to Wuhan. If that were true, why haven’t we heard about it before now?

60 Minutes summarized his claim that the pathway led “not to the lab in Wuhan but from wildlife farms in southern China directly to the wet market in Wuhan, the Huanan Seafood Market.”

Fox News torched Daszak for his relation with one of Facebook’s fact-checking partners and his refusal to humor the lab narrative:

Daszak was also cited by Facebook fact-checking partner Science Feedback in a February 2020 post headlined, “Scientific evidence indicates virus that causes COVID-19 infection is of natural origin, not the result of human engineering.”

The fact-check entry from Science Feedback did in fact cite Daszak by name in condemning the lab leak theory:

Peter Daszak, epidemiologist and president of the EcoHealth Alliance who has collaborated with WIV researchers, warned during an interview with the journal Science: “These rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China.”

The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath have appeared to be a referendum on trusting experts to set policy or decide who must be censored.

The House Judiciary GOP verified account tweeted an open letter from Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-OH) and James Comer (R-KY) condemning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for coordinating with Dr. Anthony Fauci.

In a damning indictment, the letter recounted: “Facebook amplified sources like the World Health Organization—even though such sources have proven to be conflicted and unreliable in the past.” The World Health Organization misinformed nations around the globe that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission” of COVID-19 as late as Jan. 14, 2020.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at 1-650-308-7300 and demand that Big Tech mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Alexander Hall contributes posts at the NewsBusters site, and he is a staff writer for MRC TechWatch.

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters . http://newsbusters.org/

A “Slippery, Bootlicking A.G.”? The Media Goes Silent As Garland Adopts Previously Denounced Positions Of Barr – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/11/a-slippery-bootlicking-a-g-the-media-goes-silent-as-garland-adopts-previously-denounced-positions-of-barr/

by JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent decisions of Attorney General Merrick Garland to support the prior positions taken by his predecessor, William Barr, on issues ranging from the Lafayette Park protests to immigration to withholding information related to the Mueller investigation. Positions that were once denounced by media and legal experts as raw partisanship have now been adopted by the Biden Administration with little acknowledgement from those same figures.

Here is the column:

When Joe Biden nominated Merrick Garland to be attorney general, many — including me — heralded Garland as an honorable, apolitical judge who would follow the law. He was not, the Washington Post editors insisted, “a lackey who will serve as the president’s personal attorney” like Donald Trump‘s AGs. Garland has indeed followed the law, but some are not thrilled by where it has taken him.

President Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has adopted some of the same positions taken by the Trump administration that a host of legal and media experts once denounced. This week, the DOJ sought to replace itself as the defendant in a lawsuit against Trump brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, who alleges that Trump raped her. The week before, it sought to dismiss a Black Lives Matter lawsuit over the clearing of Lafayette Park during a June 2020 protest.

This time last year, both positions were cited by legal and media experts as grotesque examples of then-Attorney General Bill Barr’s political bias. Now, those same experts are silent as Garland takes the same positions Barr took in federal court.

Garland is free, of course, to reject prior legal positions of Barr, but he has reached the same conclusion as his predecessor on several points of law thus far. In yet another adherence to Trump-era policy, the DOJ will defend opposing the ability of Puerto Ricans to receive social security disability benefits before the Supreme Court. Likewise, Garland agreed with Barr that a DOJ memo finding no legal basis for an obstruction charge against Trump should not be released to the public in its entirety.

Is Garland a Trumpist mole, part of some “deep state” resistance to his own president? Or is the more likely alternative that some in the media and many others in politics or the law knowingly distorted past legal controversies to use those as political fodder against Trump?

The general lack of media criticism — or even coverage — has never been more striking than with the latest filing in the Carroll case. In November 2019, Carroll sued Trump, claiming he defamed her when he denied sexually assaulting her. She alleges that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s.

The Biden administration has told the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that it — rather than Trump — should be the defendant because his comments were made as part of his official capacity as president. Said the Biden DOJ: “Courts have thus consistently and repeatedly held that allegedly defamatory statements made in that context are within the scope of elected officials’ employment — including when the statements were prompted by press inquiries about the official’s private life.”

That is the identical position taken by then-AG Barr last year.

A district court rejected that effort, and the Trump administration appealed. While I disagree with the treatment of any such statements as part of a president’s official duties, I stated at the time that there was support for the position in the governing federal statute and case law.

However, some media outlets featured an array of experts who denounced Barr’s legal move. Vanity Fair was typical of the coverage with a column titled “Bill Barr Sinks To New Low, Uses Justice Department To Try To Kill Trump’s Rape Defamation Suit.” In it, writer Bess Levin explained that the move proved that Barr was “willing not just to do [Trump’s] dirty work but to do it completely out in the open and without a scintilla of shame.” Citing the DOJ effort to replace Trump as a party in the suit, Levin declared that experts confirmed that “this special arrangement is wholly unique to Trump and his slippery, bootlicking A.G.” She cited University of Texas law professor and CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck and an array of other experts cited in a New York Times article. The Times wrote how “some current and former Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, echoed Mr. Vladeck’s concerns, saying they were stunned that the department had been asked to defend Trump in Ms. Carroll’s case.”

One would expect that these same media outlets and experts would denounce Garland now as another “slippery, bootlicking A.G.” doing Trump dirty work. But … no.

The same is true with the Biden DOJ ‘s recent filing in the BLM lawsuit. Last year news stories stated as fact that Barr ordered Lafayette Park to be cleared of protesters to make way for Trump’s controversial photo op before St. John’s Church. From the outset, the Trump/Barr conspiracy claim had little support, and soon there were reports contradicting it. As I explained in my testimony to Congress on the protest, the plan to clear the park area to establish a wider perimeter was due to an extreme level of violence by protesters over the preceding two days, including the injury of a high number of federal officers. The violence was so great that Trump had to be moved to a bunker. (An IG investigation debunked the conspiracy theory). None of that mattered. Viewers on CNN, MSNBC, and other news outlets wanted to hear that it was all a conspiracy. Experts like Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

Now the Biden administration is arguing that the BLM case should be dismissed. Moreover, it is advancing the same position as Barr’s DOJ that “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.” The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that “federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.”

The Biden administration is not reluctant to change positions in litigation when it disagrees with the prior administration. However, in these cases the Biden administration insists that Barr was right on the law, even if it disagrees with Trump’s statements themselves. That would likely come as a surprise to many viewers of CNN or MSNBC.

Reasonable people can disagree about such legal disputes — but the point of much of the past coverage was that there was no real dispute, just raw political abuse by Barr.

As we watch the anger and divisions growing in our nation, we need to be honest about the role that media coverage continues to play in our age of rage. It is little surprise that many are enraged when legal experts state as a fact that the Justice Department is acting without legal basis; that makes for undeniably good ratings. Now that the ratings have receded, however, the law has again emerged — with the Biden administration in full agreement with its predecessor’s legal arguments.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Crackdown on Capitol riot ‘terrorism’ may mean ARRESTS of people in Congress and around Trump, former FBI assistant director says — RT USA News

https://www.rt.com/usa/526122-capitol-terrorism-fbi-congress/

A former FBI deputy director has declared hundreds of Americans terrorists, and called for the arrest of sitting members of Congress, all over the notion that the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill was “terrorism.”

Hundreds of participants in the pro-Trump riot on Capitol Hill in January have been arrested and charged, with many held in deplorable prison conditions ahead of trial. With current FBI Director Christopher Wray testifying to Congress that the riot was an act of “domestic terrorism,” former Assistant Director Frank Figliuzzi appeared on MSNBC on Tuesday to call for even tougher action against the MAGA rioters.

“Arresting low-level operatives is merely a speed bump, not a road block,” he claimed. “In order to really tackle terrorism – and this time domestically – you’ve got to attack and dismantle the command and control element of a terrorist group.”

“Unfortunately,” he continued, “that may mean people sitting in Congress right now. People in and around the former president.”

The language used by Figliuzzi is more commonly used by officials to describe foreign terror groups, rather than mobs of unruly Americans. However, such words have been liberally deployed by intelligence officials, Democratic lawmakers, and journalists in the wake of the Capitol riot. Despite the hyperbole, many rioters were simply allowed inside the Capitol to loiter and snap selfies, and of the five deaths connected to the riot, only one (the shooting dead of an unarmed Trump supporter by a police officer) has been proven to be directly inflicted by another person.

While many of the aforementioned officials, lawmakers, and reporters have clamored for expanded surveillance powers and domestic terror laws in the wake of the riot, Figliuzzi’s comments come the closest yet to outright accusing Republican leaders of orchestrating “terrorism.”

Figliuzzi’s comments drew outrage from conservatives and opponents of the intelligence community. “We should demand that every senior FBI official, from Wray to the lowest level supervisory agent denounce this talk and make clear this lunacy is unacceptable,” security analyst Kyle Shideler tweeted. “If they do not, shutter the agency forever.”

That the FBI, or at least the agency’s former officials, would associate support for Trump with terrorism is unsurprising. FBI brass broke agency rules to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign and knew no evidence existed linking the Trump team to Russia, but investigated the supposed links anyway.

Figliuzzi was fully on board with the ‘Russiagate’ hoax, telling MSNBC’s Brian Williams after a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July 2018 that Trump was “compromised financially or personally” by Russia and therefore had “made the decision to side with the other team.” Figliuzzi gave no evidence for his claims.

Even now, long after Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found no evidence that Trump “colluded” with Russia in the runup to the 2016 election, Figliuzzi still insists that this collusion took place, and parrots the debunked story that Russia allegedly paid Taliban fighters in Afghanistan “bounties” to kill American troops.

Who Loses When the China Bat Cave Implodes? by Charles Lipson | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

https://straightlinelogic.com/2021/06/09/who-loses-when-the-china-bat-cave-implodes-by-charles-lipson/

The expert class and their Democratic cheerleaders will be two groups of losers. From Charles Lipson at realclearpolitics.com:

The story about Wuhan’s “wet market” is taking on water. We’ve moved well past the “trust but verify” stage. We’re now in the “don’t trust a damn thing they say” stage. In this case, “they” refers mostly to the Chinese Communist Party. But the public’s mistrust has spread to our own government’s public health experts, and to much of the Western media, as well.

We still don’t know where the COVID-19 pandemic originated, but the more we learn, the less China’s official story sounds right. The World Health Organization’s year-long endorsement of Beijing means nothing. At this point, even the WHO is starting to say we need a more thorough investigation. Good luck with that. China has prevented independent scientists from conducting any serious, open inquiry of the pandemic’s origins. That won’t change.

China’s secrecy tells us sometimes, but we can’t be sure what. Remember, U.S. intelligence agencies and the George W. Bush administration made the wrong inference from Saddam Hussein’s secrecy about weapons of mass destruction. Saddam impeded international inspectors to search freely for WMDs, which he possessed previously. There was no proof he had destroyed them. Yet he blocked unannounced international inspections of Iraqi sites that might contain WMDs. The natural inference was that he still had those weapons and was hiding them. American and British intelligence researched that conclusion. The CIA director famously told President Bush it was a “slam dunk.”

Continue reading→

House Republicans demand Facebook turn over communications with Fauci regarding COVID-19

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/06/09/house-republicans-demand-facebook-turn-over-communications-with-fauci-regarding-covid-19/
The lawmakers are giving Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg until June 23 to respond to the request. Go to Source Author: {Just The News}

Trump Cleared of Lafayette Park Story that Never Happened after Washington Post Retracts Quotes

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/06/09/trump-cleared-of-lafayette-park-story-that-never-happened-after-washington-post-retracts-quotes/
Police did not clear D.C.’s Lafayette Square of protesters so Trump could hold a photo op, new report says https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/police-did-not-clear-d-c-s-lafayette-park-protestors-n1270126 In both cases, the quotes were wrong, as The Post has acknowledged in a correction to the story. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/16/washington-post-correction-trump-call-georgia-investigator/ Go to Source Author: H. A. Goodman

Statement from Pres Trump 6/9/21 – Trump:The American Years

https://americafirst.blog/2021/06/09/statement-from-pres-trump-6-9-21/

Thank you to the Department of the Interior Inspector General for Completely and Totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park!

As we have said all along, and it was backed up in today’s highly detailed and professionally written report, our fine Park Police made the decision to clear the park to allow a contractor to safely install antiscale fencing to protect from Antifa rioters, radical BLM protestors, and other violent demonstrators who are causing chaos and death to our cities. In this instance, they tried burning down the church the day before the clearing. Fortunately, we were there to stop the fire from spreading beyond the basement—and it was our great honor and privilege to do so. Again, thank you to the Inspector General!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/statement-by-donald-j-trump-45th-president-of-the-united-states-of-america-06.09.21

What Florida’s New Tech Law Means For Conservatives Online | PA Pundits – International

https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/06/09/what-floridas-new-tech-law-means-for-conservatives-online/
By Douglas Blair ~ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill on targeting social media platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, for their repeated and aggressive suppression of conservative speech. The legislation would fine social media companies if they deplatform candidates for state office during election season, as well as make it easier for private citizens to sue tech giants.

DeSantis has firsthand experience of tech companies censoring content for arbitrary reasons. Back in April, the governor posted a town hall meeting featuring doctors from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard medical schools on YouTube. In response to a question from DeSantis on the need for children to wear masks, the doctors all agreed that it was unnecessary. YouTube promptly took the video down for “medical misinformation,” then issued a statement saying it wasn’t politically motivated. That convinced exactly nobody, since YouTube already had a reputation for banning conservative speech it doesn’t like for the most spurious of reasons. Conservatives have already begun hitting back against tech giants on an individual level. One example is commentator and comedian Steven Crowder, who recently announced he would be suing YouTube over its inconsistent and targeted enforcement of its rules. As Heritage Foundation research fellow Kara Frederick explained, “In March, YouTube demonetized Crowder’s channel and issued his first demerit of 2021 on grounds that one of his videos contained COVID-19 misinformation. In April, Crowder earned ‘strike two’ under the pretext of harassment and cyberbullying. One more infraction in the designated 90-day window, and he will be permanently cut off from his 5 million YouTube followers.” (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) While the individual actions taken by conservatives, such as Crowder, are a start, what Florida is doing will set the tone for how conservatives fight back against Big Tech on a bigger and more organized scale. Censorship by social media platforms is an existential threat to the conservative movement, but the movement has struggled thus far to coalesce around a single solution. This difficulty of finding standardized solutions is why bills such as the one DeSantis signed May 24 are useful. The battle to preserve conservative voices online must be fought on many fronts. In addition to the individual level, free markets must also be involved. There are private businesses that exemplify this principle of free market solutions. For example, Right Forge is a data-hosting company that refuses to take down content that isn’t explicitly illegal, and has a set of core principles based on the Constitution. Likewise, content platform Locals allows brands and creators to upload and manage their own community of supporters, with minimal interference from the larger platform. As the tech giants continue to strangle dissent, disgruntled lovers of free speech will create platforms that value liberty of expression. Companies that value free and open expression should receive conservative support, as that will begin to put pressure on platforms such as Twitter or Facebook to respect those values or lose conservative support. But just as importantly as individual or free market efforts, the fight to protect conservative speech should be waged in the states. The states, unlike the overly broad and all-encompassing federal government, can be localized test sites for the most effective solutions to censorship. Conservatives can see what policies are the most effective at holding tech companies to account, keeping them transparent, and preventing social media companies from abusing their power over public discourse. The war to preserve conservative thought and speech on the internet will be long and grueling. It’s good that state governors, such as DeSantis, are leading the charge, telling YouTube and its ilk that the right will fight back. Individuals and states must keep up the pressure. If we don’t, there might soon be no safe harbors left. Douglas Blair is a contributor to the Daily Signal and a graduate of Heritage’s Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation . http://www.heritage.org/ Read more informative articles at The Daily Signal http://dailysignal.com/

%d bloggers like this: