MSNBC Contributor: ‘The Iowa Caucus Is Essentially the Perfect Example of Systemic Racism

Image result for darth vader facepalm"

MSNBC Political Analyst Zerlina Maxwell blasted the Iowa Caucus as the “perfect example of systemic racism” in the aftermath of the state’s Democratic party disastrous handling of Monday’s voting, which the results still have not been released.

Maxwell and the MSNBC panel was discussing the low turnout for the caucuses across the state. Entrance polling showed 35% of Iowan voters were caucusing for the first time, as opposed to 44% in 2016.

“Democrats have long leaned on President Trump being a motivator for voters. Those number don’t bear that out. Should that concern Democrats?” host Craig Melvin asked.

“Yes, but I think for a different reason than a lot of folks probably will think. Maybe I’ll be the only person to say this today. The Iowa caucus is essentially the perfect example of systemic racism. 91% of the voters in Iowa are white,” Maxwell said.

“The reason why you see a drop in turnout, I’m just speculating here, it could be perhaps that white children are not in the cages. So when you’re talking about the tangible pain that black and brown people are feeling, they feel a sense of urgency because their kids are being put in cages, right? So if you have 91% white electorate, that sense of urgency may not be reflected in the turnout numbers,” she continued. “I’m not saying that’s the reason for this. It could be a factor.”

Former President Barack Obama won the state in 2008 and Hispanic Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was the victor in 2016.

Maxwell elaborated on her comments on Twitter:  Zerlina Maxwell@ZerlinaMaxwell

My point being that the urgency and pain isn’t felt in the same way. That matters even though no one will want to admit it.

I also noted that the caucus system is UNDemocratic & suppresses votes of historically marginalized like folks with accessibility needs and single parents …Elie Mystal✔@ElieNYCNice. Explaining the low turnout numbers in overwhelmingly white Iowa, @ZerlinaMaxwell says that one factor is that “white children are not in the cages.”838Twitter Ads info and privacy279 people are talking about this

Wow, CNN Admits Democrats Lied About Trump’s Ukraine Call?

Image result for cnn liar

In order to impeach the president, Democrats have to lie about the facts. It has now come to the point where even CNN is calling the Democrats out on their lies. 

Two Democratic representatives from Texas, Veronica Escobar and Sheila Jackson Lee, both lied during debate on articles of impeachment on Thursday about what President Trump said during his phone call to the president of Ukraine.

Rep. Escobar said President Trump told President Zelensky, “I want you to do me a favor though.” 

Rep. Jackson Lee quoted Trump saying, “I would like you to do a favor though.”

What Trump actually said was “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.” The full quote makes it clear that Trump was asking the president of Ukraine to do “our country” a favor. 

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Dems Veronica Escobar and Jackson Lee purposely misquoted my call. I said I want you to do us (our Country!) a favor, not me a favor. They know that but decided to LIE in order to make a fraudulent point! Very sad.87.1K7:40 AM – Dec 12, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy40.5K people are talking about this

Even CNN had to admit the president was right (Via CNN):

President Trump alleged that Democratic Reps. Veronica Escobar and Sheila Jackson Lee “purposely misquoted” his call with the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky in a Tweet this morning.

Facts First: Trump is correct that the call was misquoted during today’s debate over the articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary committee.

In the declassified memo of the July 25 phone call between Trump and President Zelensky, the President says, “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot.”

Of course, the headline CNN used, “Fact check: Trump says Democrats misquoted his call. He’s correct,” has a lot less vitriol than other CNN headlines like, “Lies, lies, lies: How Trump’s fiction gets more dramatic over time.” But at least they got the facts right this time. 

CNN Carried Only 33% of Horowitz Hearing, But Had 99% of Impeachment Hearing!

On Wednesday night, NewsBusters examined the live coverage from the top three cable news networks (CNN, Fox News Channel, and MSNBC) devoted to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing featuring Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz on his report on the Russia probe and, most notably, far-left, pro-impeachment CNN only covered live 33.4 percent of the hearing.

But when it came time for Wednesday’s impeachment hearing, CNN reminded us why they need a lesson on idiolatry and find things to care about besides hating Trump. All told, they carried 99.9 percent of the primetime House Judiciary Committee hearing on Articles of Impeachment, which amounted to all but nine seconds.

In contrast on the Horowitz hearing, MSNBC stepped up to the plate and carried 89 percent of it live while FNC was just behind at 88.7 percent. For CNN, perhaps it stemmed from the fact that it didn’t feature their favorite Democrats like Congressman Adam Schiff (CA).

Using C-SPAN’s gavel-to-gavel coverage, the hearing lasted roughly 320 minutes and 37 seconds, but the Jeffrey Zucker-led CNN dipped in for only 106 minutes and 56 seconds.

Instead, CNN ignored Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham’s opening statement and didn’t join the hearing until 10:57 a.m. Eastern in the midst of Horowitz’s opening statement. CNN took a six-minute commercial break at 11:50 a.m. Eastern and rejoined the hearing until its pause for lunch.

Inside Politics and CNN Right Now filled their airtime with their predictably pro-FBI and anti-Trump spin until rediscovering the hearing at 1:48 p.m. Eastern. 

At 2:11 p.m. Eastern, CNN Newsroom’s Brooke Baldwin bailed in order to counteract any and all Republican arguments with liberal CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and former Jim Comey flack/CNN analyst Josh Campbell.

CNN then refused to return live to the hearing until Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) took her turn. Once Harris’s time expired, Baldwin left the hearing for a final time and CNN never returned (despite there being 38 minutes left).

As alluded to above, FNC and MSNBC took this hearing seriously. In the case of MSNBC, it must have been painful for them to do something so noble.

MSNBC started seconds after Graham began speaking and stayed until part way through his opening statement. The Beat’s Ari Melber interjected to react with a panel of fellow lefties for about 20 minutes before turning it back over to the hearing.

From that point on, MSNBC carried the rest of the hearing until 4:00 p.m. Eastern when TDS sufferer Nicolle Wallace couldn’t take it anymore and began her show Deadline: White House.

FNC carried all but a few seconds of the morning session and the afternoon session until 2:18 p.m. Eastern when The Daily Briefing host Dana Perino took viewers to a press conference with law enforcement officials in Jersey City, New Jersey concerning Tuesday’s deadly shooting at kosher grocery store. 

Perino brought in a panel for reaction to the latest developments there and returned to the hearing at 2:44 p.m. Eastern. 

Following that break, FNC stuck with Horowitz’s testimony and questioning from Senators of both parties until its conclusion just after 4:15 p.m. Eastern.

CNN Did Not Air Lindsey Graham’s Opening Remarks In FISA Abuse Hearing Live

CNN did not air Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) opening statement live during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report on FISA abuse.

Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, laid out what the FBI did in order to obtain their FISA warrants against people associated with President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Instead of airing his opening remarks live, “CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto” had four commercial breaks, a panel with CNN’s National Security Analyst Susan Hennessey and Bloomberg reporter Sahil Kapur about impeachment, a panel with CNN’s Justice Correspondent Jessica Schneider and former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs Greg Bower, an interview with Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), and a segment reporting on a whistleblower raising concerns about Boeing’s 737 Super Max planes.

Almost 40 minutes into the hearing, CNN did air a 15-second clip of Graham stating how the Russians are meddling in America’s election. In the same 9:00 A.M. time slot on Monday, CNN aired Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) full opening statement during the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing.

Fox News aired Graham’s opening statement in full, with MSNBC airing most of it live. CNN did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

The Trump campaign and Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel criticized the network for not airing Graham’s remarks despite airing Democrats’ comments in full.

Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022)@TrumpWarRoom

After airing days & days of Democrat impeachment hearings, FAKE NEWS @CNN and @MSNBC are REFUSING to air @LindseyGrahamSC‘s opening statement in the Inspector General’s report hearing.

They are COVERING UP the truth. They are nothing more than propaganda for the Democrats!

View image on Twitter

1,7607:38 AM – Dec 11, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy1,309 people are talking about this

Ronna McDaniel@GOPChairwoman

CNN aired everything Schiff & Nadler had to say. Why aren’t they showing @LindseyGrahamSC? Is it because the facts of how the FBI mistreated @realDonaldTrump contradict their coverage over the last 3 years? …Steve Guest@SteveGuestAfter giving their air time COMPLETELY over to Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff for the past few weeks, CNN IS NOT AIRING the start of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Horowitz’s IG report. #StopTheMadness3,5577:38 AM – Dec 11, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy2,387 people are talking about this

At the time of publication, CNN also did not air Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, opening statement.   Share this on Facebook (114)  Tweet

MSM Scrambling To Minimize Importance Of Horowitz Report Criminal Referral Of FBI lawyer

Image result for liberal media

The former FBI lawyer, whose doctoring of evidence submitted to the FISA Court resulted in a criminal referral by the DOJ inspector general, has now been identified by the New York Times as Kevin Clinesmith.  That paper, like CNN, which broke the story, pretends he is a lowly functionary, barely worthy of attention:

Investigators for the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, uncovered errors and omissions in documents related to the wiretapping of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — including that a low-level lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, altered an email that officials used to prepare to seek court approval to renew the wiretap, the people said.

Just clerical errors — “errors and omissions” — you see.  Nothing to get upset about.

One of those calling BS is Sean Davis of The Federalist, referencing the initial excuses offered for the IRS targeting of conservative groups:

Another debunker of the cover-up is Jeff Carlson, who responded to a tweet by Lawfare Group member Benjamin Wittes:

The inimitable Sundance of Conservative Treehouse closely analyzes the ambiguities of the Times article, teasing out what could be concealed. For example:

The Times:

WASHINGTON — A highly anticipated report by the Justice Department’s inspector general is expected to sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, but to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump, according to people briefed on a draft.


One can read that from the perspective of accountability and become frustrated.  However, notice the construction closely: “to absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump”… or put another way, there was an “abuse of power”, but that abuse cannot specifically be attributed to bias against the President.  Key point: there was an “abuse of power”, it is in the motive for that abuse where narratives step in.

There’s a lot more.  I don’t buy into all his interpretations, but see for yourself.

Clinesmith could be looking at a lot of years in prison.  Reportedly, John Durham, tasked with uncovering the scandal around the genesis of the Russia hoax, has received the criminal referral.  Since his interest is in uncovering the entire plot, he is in a position to pressure Clinesmith into implicating higher-ups.  And he’s worked for a bunch of them in the most politically sensitive cases handled by the FBI and DOJ.  Those assignments alone make absurd the characterization of him as “low-level.”  Only highly regarded (and presumed reliable, as in omertà) sorts of people receive such plum assignments.

But if he is squeezed, will omertà keep his lips sealed?, which compiled some of his texts on Trump that demonstrate his contempt for the POTUS, took two pictures of him off his Facebook page.  Ask yourself if he looks like the kind of guy who could handle a couple of decades in the pen:

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Impeachment Frenzy: TV Networks Blast Trump With 96% Negative News!

Image result for liberal media

With virtually no chance Senate Republicans will vote to remove President Trump from office, House Democrats’ drive for impeachment is more likely aimed at creating a deluge of negative daily headlines hoping to cripple Trump going into next year’s election. If that is indeed Democrats’ goal, then the three broadcast networks are doing everything they can to help achieve this partisan objective:

■ Overwhelmingly Negative: MRC analysts have reviewed all coverage of President Trump and his administration on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts since 2017. Following the beginning of the impeachment inquiry on September 24, this coverage has been even more hostile than normal: Out of 684 evaluative comments included in these broadcasts, a whopping 96 percent have been negative, vs. a meager four percent that have been positive.

(Methodology: To determine the spin of news coverage, our analysts tallied all explicitly evaluative statements about the President or his administration from either reporters, anchors or non-partisan sources such as experts or voters. Evaluations from partisan sources, as well as neutral statements, were not included.)

■ All About Impeachment: TV’s fascination with Democrats’ impeachment push has crowded out nearly all other news about the administration. During the six weeks since Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the start of the inquiry (September 24 through November 5), the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts churned out 398 minutes of coverage to the Ukraine scandal, or more than three-fifths of all administration news during this period (645 minutes).

This nearly matches the 438 minutes of airtime these newscasts produced during the most hyper-intensive six weeks of the Russia “collusion” scandal, starting when the President fired James Comey as FBI Director on May 9, 2017 (and media talking heads began railing about Trump’s “Watergate”) through June 20 of that year — weeks that also included the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel on May 17 and Comey’s much-ballyhooed congressional testimony on June 8.

■ Secret Sources: With most of the developments behind closed doors, the majority of the networks’ impeachment coverage has been based on secret leaks from anonymous sources. Out of 172 news reports, a large majority (59%) relied on unnamed sources for their facts about the impeachment probe. This is slightly higher than when we first checked in late October, when 57 percent of impeachment stories used anonymous sources.

■ Even Negative Spin on Baghdadi Death: Only two other Trump administration topics have been granted much airtime since the inquiry began: the successful U.S. mission that led to the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (45 minutes before it faded from the newscasts), and the earlier decision of the President to pull U.S. troops out of northern Syria (121 minutes).

The withdrawal of U.S. forces was given witheringly (98%) negative coverage on all three networks, whose journalists routinely framed it as “abandoning” an ally (the Syrian Kurds) in the fight against ISIS.

But while media coverage of the U.S. mission against al-Baghdadi was mostly positive, the President’s role in it was not. Out of nine evaluative statements about the President himself, two-thirds (67%) were negative. These focused on his refusal to brief congressional leaders, as well as his belittling description of the cruel ISIS leader’s last moments (“He died like a dog….He died like a coward….Whimpering, screaming and crying.”)

“It’s possible that President Trump’s bellicose language about the manner in which he died could actually inspire some ISIS fighters to retaliate,” NBC’s Courtney Kube speculated on the October 27 Nightly News.

■ Silent on Economic Success: Despite record highs in the stock market and a fifty-year low in the unemployment rate, the President’s handling of the economy was given a stingy 4 minutes, 6 seconds of airtime during these six weeks, or less than one percent of all Trump administration news (645 minutes).

■ Impeachment Diverting Airtime from 2020 Democrats: TV’s heavy coverage of impeachment has essentially smothered coverage of the Democratic presidential race, which drew a meager 110 minutes of coverage during these six weeks — barely a third of the airtime granted to the 2016 campaign during these same weeks in 2015 (312 minutes).  

Nearly half of this year’s campaign coverage (51 minutes) was about Joe Biden, his son and the Ukraine, leaving only 59 minutes for non-impeachment related topics. The next most-covered campaign event, Bernie Sanders’ heart attack, drew just 16 minutes of airtime.

■ Boosting Biden: But when it came his Ukraine dealings, Biden has received the best press of his campaign (71% positive), as some journalists repeated a mantra that “there is no evidence of any wrongdoing” (ABC’s Jon Karl, September 24), while others traveled to the Ukraine to make the same point. “Did you ever see any evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden,” CBS’s Roxana Saberi asked an ex-deputy prosecutor. “Never, ever,” came the reply.