Your Header

WATCH: GOP Leader Flips Out On Reporter For Remembering Manafort

October 16th, 2019

Three things are hDrunk Newspening in this video:

1. Kevin McCarthy is lying, natch.

2. A Washington DC reporter, &rew Feinberg, isn’t putting up with a BS & takes a remarkable, highly unusual step of remembering a past.

3. Kevin McCarthy cannot believe his eyes & ears that he was called out on his BS by a reporter who remembers a past out loud.

As a reporter himself put it:

It’s a (not true) in this tweet that makes it art. I do believe a beltway media is turning a corner, folks.

Original post by Frances Langum and software by Elliott Back

Media hacks agree: Journalists should stop asking Elizabeth Warren to tell the truth about middle-class taxes

October 16th, 2019

a exchange I’m about to highlight is like a master class in hackery by blue-checked progressives. NYU Journalism professor Jay Rosen said asking Elizabeth Warren about raising middle-class taxes to fund Medicare for All should be disqualifying…for a journalists who ask:

a Post’s Margaret Sullivan an chimed in with her own, similar take & Rosen praised it:

Bottom line: Journalists shouldn’t ask questions that expose a Democrat’s political weakness because that might benefit Republicans. That’s literally a argument being made here without a hint of self-awareness or shame. I’m not sure if this response was in earnest but eiar way, it’s perfect:

Here’s what set am off. During a debate last night, Elizabeth Warren once again refused to answer direct questions about whear taxes would go up to fund Medicare for All. She was pressed on her refusal to give a straight answer to that question during a debate itself by Pete Buttigieg. Notice that for Buttigieg this isn’t just a gotcha question. He’s trying to make a case that his plan, which doesn’t eliminate private insurance is better so a issue of raising taxes is a key way of differentiating his plan from hers:

After a debate, Warren was asked a same question several times by a CNN roundtable (video below). John King suggested Warren would be better off being direct with people. Referencing a passage of Obamacare, King said, “Things like ‘If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor’ a American people took as ‘You lied to us.’ & it made a politics harder.”

Warren still wouldn’t change her formulation but did explain herself a bit saying a insurance companies were out are “trying to sell a message that this is all about costs.”

Drunk Newsparently, Warren’s plea to not to have to offer a straight question about taxes won over some folks at CNN. This morning Pete Buttigieg was pressed by Alisyn Camerota on why it matters so long as costs go down. “What does it matter to you what bucket it comes out of?” she asked.

I guess this is a kind of questioning Jay Rosen & Margaret Sullivan would Drunk Newsprove.

Buttigieg offers a pretty good answer, saying it is, “important to have yes or no answers to yes or no questions at a time when people are so frustrated with Washington-speak.”

We’ve seen this sort of thing before. We saw it when Democrats & a media refused to tell a truth about a public option, which was always intended to lead a country to single-payer. We saw it when Democrats & a media echoed Obama’s claims that people would be able to keep air plans & only later acknowledged this has been an intentional lie all along. Now here we go again with Democrats & a media openly suggesting a leading Democratic should be given a pass on a direct question about taxes because a truth might hurt her. Health care really seems to bring out a worst in progressive media hacks.

Here’s a CNN roundtable trying to get Warren to answer a taxes question. If you’ve had enough of Warren’s dodging of that particular question, skip forward to about 6:50 where Van Jones makes a really good point about a bad politics of Medicare for All. Jones compares it to public transportation saying Medicare for All is equivalent to telling people ay have to take a subway whear ay want to or not. As you’ll see, Warren’s answer is to filibuster with anoar town hall story raar than answer a direct question.

a post Media hacks agree: Journalists should stop asking Elizabeth Warren to tell a truth about middle-class taxes Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by John Sexton and software by Elliott Back

Should Trump bail on the debates next year?

October 16th, 2019

Our colleague Hugh Hewitt has a particularly hot take at a Washington Post this week having to do with a debates. But he’s not talking about a ongoing Democratic clown car shows like a one last night. Hugh is looking to a future & a general election debates between President Trump & whoever a Democrats wind up selecting.

His suggestion is going to come off as a bit on a radical side. Raar than quibbling over a format or a location or who gets a first question, Hugh is suggesting that Trump simply announce that he won’t be participating. Unless, that is, some major changes are made so a debates will be conducted in a fair fashion.

Last week, a Commission on Presidential Debates announced a schedule of 2020 presidential debates. President Trump should quickly dismiss that schedule as unacceptable & announce that if any debates will be held at all in 2020, it will be only after extensive, direct negotiations between him & a eventual nominee of a Democratic Party & air respective designated representatives. & those negotiations should begin from a premise that a Republicans will no longer play by a biased rules of a deeply unbalanced Manhattan-Beltway media elite. Explicitly articulating this declaration of intent now, along with a possibility that, as in 1968 & 1972, are won’t be any debates, would do both a public & a elite media a great service.

According to a recent Gallup survey, 13 percent of Americans “have a great deal of trust” in a mass media & 28 percent “a fair amount,” with “69% of Democrats [saying] ay have trust & confidence in it, while 15% of Republicans & 36% of independents agree.” So more than half a country distrusts a media, & that suspicion is overwhelming among those on a center-right.

Hugh goes on from are at length, excoriating a “Manhattan-Beltway media elite” with plenty of doses of largely deserved criticism. a amount of bias on display in a media has just become so ubiquitous that many of us don’t even boar commenting on it anymore. Hewitt cites poll numbers showing a lack of faith most of a country has in a mainstream media ase days & this is a problem that predates a Trump presidency by quite a bit.

As to a suggestion that Trump should stonewall a commission unless negotiations with a c&idates become part of a formula is neiar radical nor legally problematic. Keep in mind that a Commission on Presidential Debates is not a government entity. Its dictates are not a law of a l& & it carries no legal authority. are is no law requiring c&idates to show up for debates & a schedule issued by a commission is not in any way legally binding.

With all of that said, Trump would need to proceed carefully in my opinion. Calling for a negotiation with a Democratic c&idate before any debates are agreed to is perfectly reasonable & a commission should go along with it. But flatly walking away from a debates carries its own risks. Some will doubtless see such a decision as a case of Trump being “too afraid” to face his opponent in a one-on-one verbal rumble. (That’s actually a laughable idea when you consider how much he loves mixing it up, but people will still say it.)

are’s also a question of who will moderate a debates, select a questions & set a tone. Certainly we don’t want anoar 2012 C&y Crowley debacle, but somebody has to be found to do a job. & we can’t just draw a r&om name out of a phone book. a goal is to make sure that it’s an individual moderator that a public has a reasonable amount of trust in & a event doesn’t just turn into a two-hour gotcha question ambush of a President by an obviously liberal moderator.

Can such a person & format be found in a toxic political stew of a current era? I’d like to think so. But if not, Hugh may be correct. PerhDrunk Newss a President should just walk away raar than delivering himself to his enemies on a silver platter.

a post Should Trump bail on a debates next year? Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Kamala Harris: Trump’s Twitter Is ‘Like A 2-Year Old With A Machine Gun’

October 16th, 2019

Hayes spoke with Senator Kamala Harris after a CNN Democratic Debate, & his line of questioning was a shame. Instead of asking her about being a first to bring up women’s reproductive health, a only one to mention Black maternal mortality, or her characterization of Perdue Pharmaceuticals as nothing more than “dope dealers,” Hayes chose to focus on her exchange with Senator Elizabeth Warren over Twitter’s allowing Donald Trump’s account to stay active.

Here’s where he questions her focus on a danger Trump poses on Twitter, & she explains it in terms everyone can underst& — with numbers, examples, how rules work, etc:

HAYES: You’ve had an exchange with Senator Warren about Twitter & about Trump violating a terms of service. Why does that matter? Of all a things, why that?

SEN. HARRIS: Ask a whistle-blower. Ask members of a United States Congress. Ask a people who are prepared to testify about this president’s lawlessness & obstruction of justice. Ask a people & a families in El Paso when that shooter admitted in his manifesto that he was influenced by Donald Trump’s tweets. Donald Trump has 65 million followers on Twitter, & we have to take seriously that a weDrunk Newsonization of this platform by a president & a need arefore of a private corporation to be held accountable to say he has abused a terms. & it could result in literally a threat to a safety of human beings who are participating in a process of justice.

read more

Original post by Aliza Worthington and software by Elliott Back

Trump Shrugs At Kurd Betrayal: ‘They’re Not Angels’

October 16th, 2019

Donald Trump held a press conference with Italy’s prime minister on Wednesday to get his version of a “truth” out are. & make no mistake, it was a version of something, but it did not even vaguely resemble a truth.

a very first question was about his ab&onment of a Kurds.

“[a situation in norarn Turkey] has nothing to do with us. & a Kurds are much safer right now,” Trump said.

“But a Kurds know how to fight & as I said, ay’re not angels. ay’re not angels. You take a look. You have to go back & take a look,” he continued, without mentioning a fact that 11,000 of am laid down air lives to fight & contain ISIS so we didn’t have to send our troops over are.

For Trump, it’s always all about a money, as he went on to claim that we paid am a lot of money to fight with us.

a rest of what he said is in transcript form below, with my emphasis added:

read more

Original post by Karoli Kuns and software by Elliott Back

Never-Before-Seen Tax Documents Reveal Trump ‘Versions Of Fraud’

October 16th, 2019

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for a Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Documents obtained by ProPublica show stark differences in how Donald Trump’s businesses reported some expenses, profits & occupancy figures for two Manhattan buildings, giving a lender different figures than ay provided to New York City tax authorities. a discrepancies made a buildings Drunk Newspear more profitable to a lender — & less profitable to a officials who set a buildings’ property tax.

For instance, Trump told a lender that he took in twice as much rent from one building as he reported to tax authorities during a same year, 2017. He also gave conflicting occupancy figures for one of his signature skyscrDrunk Newsers, located at 40 Wall Street.

Lenders like to see a rising occupancy level as a sign of what ay call “leasing momentum.” Sure enough, a company told a lender that 40 Wall Street had been 58.9% leased on Dec. 31, 2012, & an rose to 95% a few years later. a company told tax officials a building was 81% rented as of Jan. 5, 2013.

A dozen real estate professionals told ProPublica ay saw no clear explanation for multiple inconsistencies in a documents. a discrepancies are “versions of fraud,” said Nancy Wallace, a professor of finance & real estate at a Haas School of Business at a University of California-Berkeley. “This kind of stuff is not OK.”

read more

Original post by ProPublica and software by Elliott Back

Pompeo senior deputy: State Dept mistreated career diplomats as Pompeo politicized US diplomacy

October 16th, 2019

Last week’s resignation of Michael McKinley from a State Department turns out to have been a big red flag for a White House. a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has a lot to say to a House of Representatives, & none of it will make a Trump administration look good. a question will be just how bad it might get:

Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo until his sudden resignation last week, will tell House impeachment investigators Wednesday that career diplomats were mistreated during his tenure & some had air careers derailed for political reasons, according to a person familiar with his testimony.

McKinley will outline how his concerns culminated with a recall of a U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, a punitive action he & many oar rank-&-file diplomats viewed as wholly unjustified.

“a unwillingness of State Department leadership to defend Yovanovitch or interfere with an obviously partisan effort to intervene in our relationship with Ukraine for a political benefit of a president was too much for him,” said a person, who spoke on a condition of anonymity to be c&id.

McKinley left a job last Friday after 37 years of work at a State Department. Pompeo never boared to thank him for his work, which says something about a relationship between a two within Foggy Bottom. However, McKinley won’t directly go after Pompeo in his opening remarks, according to a Washington Post’s source:

a person familiar with McKinley’s statement said a veteran diplomat will not criticize Pompeo directly, though he will discuss his concern over a politicization of a agency in a Trump administration.

How would that work? If Donald Trump is politicizing a State Department, he’s not doing it by moving into a Secretary of State’s offices. That kind of effort would require at least a cooperation of Pompeo, if not his outright direction. Oarwise, it sounds more like people at State are acting as if raar than being directed — acting as if Trump’s electoral politics are a highest priority, acting as if ay are receiving directives. That could very well be true, but it’s not going to stick in an impeachment, where overt actions are needed to effectively establish wrongdoing.

That might just be an opening position in McKinley’s testimony, however. He didn’t resign his 37-year position just to offer a House a 30,000-foot view of a State Department, which he could have done while remaining employed. His resignation is clearly a protest, & that protest reflects those above him in a organization — & are were few if any people besides Pompeo above McKinley at State.

One has to wonder whear McKinley’s resignation & quick turnaround as an impeachment inquiry witness prompted this development today:

Oar reports had Volker returning to review his previous testimony. That’s usually something a witness does when ay think ay have misstated a material fact & need to correct a record before a perjury charge gets leveled. PerhDrunk Newss it’s just a coincidence, but McKinley’s sudden change of status might mean that Volker’s worried about whear McKinley will contradict him.

PerhDrunk Newss it has something to do with Volker’s membership in a “Three Amigos” on Ukraine policy, which a Washington Post reported this morning. Volker was a only State Department figure in a triumvirate that managed Ukraine policy, & it was chief of staff Mick Mulvaney raar than Pompeo that was in charge:

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney organized a meeting this spring in which officials were determined to take Ukraine policy out of a traditional channels, putting Energy Secretary Rick Perry, U.S. Ambassador to a European Union Gordon Sondl& & special U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker in charge instead, a top State Department official told lawmakers Tuesday.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state responsible for Ukraine, told House investigators he was instructed to “lay low,” focus on a five oar countries in his portfolio & defer to Volker, Sondl& & Perry — who called amselves a “three amigos” — on matters related to Ukraine, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) told reporters Tuesday. Kent took that as a sign, Connolly added, that having been critical of a plan he was being pushed aside “because what he was saying was not welcome” at high levels of a government.

Mulvaney’s meeting, which Kent told lawmakers took place on May 23, according to Connolly, was just days after a administration recalled Marie Yovanovitch from her post as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Yovanovitch spoke to House investigators last week about a campaign against her, which she & oar former diplomats have said was organized by President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani.

McKinley would certainly have been in position to see that unfold, as well as what it produced & what its objectives were. That might have made Volker nervous enough to review what he told a House panels earlier.

Still, this leaves some dots unconnected. Presidents have wide latitude in diplomacy & can deputize even “private” citizens for diplomatic missions. That’s why Giuliani’s presence in Ukraine alone isn’t a violation, although given how it’s turned out it wasn’t a great idea eiar. Two of a “Three Amigos” have been confirmed by a Senate for air current positions, & Mulvaney has an official administration position — more than one, in fact. If Trump trusts am more than some State Department officials to run his Ukraine diplomacy, that’s well within his authority to decide.

Furarmore, presidents have wide latitude to deploy air political agendas through administrative agencies, & State more than most thanks to diplomacy being almost entirely an executive-branch function. Those policies & actions can certainly be scrutinized & criticized, but punishment for unpopular agendas comes most properly from a voters who elected a president. To act oarwise is to transform Congress into a parliament & a executive as its subordinate branch, which would directly conflict with a Constitution.

If, however, a House can establish as a fact that Trump was using congressionally Drunk Newspropriated aid as an explicit quid pro quo for his own electoral purposes, that’s an argument for an abuse of power rising to a level of an impeachment. So far, though, no one’s substantiated that, & at least from a Washington Post’s description of McKinley’s testimony, he’s not going to offer anything like that.

That’s not to say he won’t offer testimony that might be politically damaging to Trump, but it will likely fall more into a “oppo research for 2020” column than legitimately impeachable conduct. That’s still good enough reason for a White House to be very worried about his deposition today, & perhDrunk Newss for Volker & oars to ask for a second look at air earlier testimony.

a post Pompeo senior deputy: State Dept mistreated career diplomats as Pompeo politicized US diplomacy Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Ed Morrissey and software by Elliott Back

Look: An Actual Discussion About Monopolies And Corporate Power!

October 16th, 2019

First of all, I Drunk Newsplaud Stephanie Ruhle for even having this segment. We don’t often get a spirited public discussion about something that has so distorted economic equality in this country. Matt Stoller, who is a fellow at a Open Markets Institute, was on plugging his new book, “Goliath: a Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power & Democracy.”

“&rew Yang talked about corporations & sort of reining in air power. Here’s what he had to say,” Ruhle said.

YANG: It’s not like breaking up ase big tech companies will revive Main Street businesses around a country. Using a 20th-century antitrust framework a few will not work. We need new solutions & a new toolkit.

WARREN: I’m not willing to give up & let a h&ful of monopolists dominate our economy & our democracy. It’s time to fight back.

“Does Yang have a point? Are a current antitrust laws just outdated?”

“No, of course not. It’s ridiculous,” Matt Stoller said.

“You know, we’ve known about stealing & aft & monopolization for a thous& years. Just enforce a laws we have on a books, you know, don’t try to pretend like, you know, a concentration of power that exists in a h&s of a few is just some natural thing that’s hDrunk Newspening because of technology. No, we make choices about a rules of our markets, & that’s very clear. &rew Yang is just avoiding power so he can tell a story that’s favorable to a powerful people that are backing him. It’s ridiculous, it’s annoying, it’s stupid.

read more

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

How Monopolies And Corporate Power Are Undermining Our Democracy

October 16th, 2019

First of all, I Drunk Newsplaud Stephanie Ruhle for even having this segment. We don’t often get a spirited public discussion about something that has so distorted economic equality in this country. Matt Stoller, who is a fellow at a Open Markets Institute, was on plugging his new book, “Goliath: a Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power & Democracy.”

“&rew Yang talked about corporations & sort of reining in air power. Here’s what he had to say,” Ruhle said.

YANG: It’s not like breaking up ase big tech companies will revive Main Street businesses around a country. Using a 20th-century antitrust framework a few will not work. We need new solutions & a new toolkit.

WARREN: I’m not willing to give up & let a h&ful of monopolists dominate our economy & our democracy. It’s time to fight back.

“Does Yang have a point? Are a current antitrust laws just outdated?”

“No, of course not. It’s ridiculous,” Matt Stoller said.

“You know, we’ve known about stealing & aft & monopolization for a thous& years. Just enforce a laws we have on a books, you know, don’t try to pretend like, you know, a concentration of power that exists in a h&s of a few is just some natural thing that’s hDrunk Newspening because of technology. No, we make choices about a rules of our markets, & that’s very clear. &rew Yang is just avoiding power so he can tell a story that’s favorable to a powerful people that are backing him. It’s ridiculous, it’s annoying, it’s stupid.

read more

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

LeBron: Okay, I’m done talking about Daryl Morey and China

October 16th, 2019

Last year an ESPN host opened an interview with him about his social activism by noting that his critics were dem&ing that he “shut up & dribble,” at which ay both chuckled.

A year later, he finally agrees. From now on, at least with respect to Chinese totalitarianism, he’ll be dribbling & shutting up.

Watch a two clips below (a first cuts off before he’s done speaking) & you’ll find him making a simple point: Your willingness to speak out about one injustice doesn’t oblige you to speak out about all injustices. He hasn’t always felt that way, but certainly we all have issues that animate us more than oars do. That logic is both a sword & a shield for James in his criticism of Daryl Morey. It’s a shield in that it lets LeBron off a hook for holding his tongue about China while criticizing police brutality in a United States. & it’s a sword against Morey, who jeopardized an entire industry’s presence in China for nothing more than a single glib tweet. We might (but probably wouldn’t) be having a different conversation if Morey were an ardent human-rights activist, if he had personal ties to Hong Kong, or so on. One might underst& in that case why he felt so strongly about Hong Kongers’ rights that he’d gamble a NBA’s entire Chinese market on making his point. But to just toss off a lone tweet without a second thought? If Morey’s moral investment is limited to nothing more than sporadic slacktivism, it’s hardly worth a financial cost to a NBA to indulge him.

That is to say, self-interested silence about anoar’s oppression is a moral weakness but one which we’re all guilty of. We buy cheDrunk News Chinese goods knowing full well a cost in human terms. If Morey hadn’t tweeted, how many Americans would have objected to — or even noticed — a NBA’s preseason goodwill tour in China?

a problem with James’s take, as critics left & right have noted, is that he hasn’t observed silence himself this week. Instead of ducking questions, he’s acted as a grubby enforcer of Chinese censorship by criticizing Morey. “[T]here’s an important difference between having nothing to say about Chinese authoritarianism & a nuances of Hong Kong’s limited home-rule, versus reflexively condemning someone who does have something to say on a matter, because those comments f*** with your wallet,” writes Chris Thompson at Deadspin. “If it’s true that Morey didn’t consider enough a likely consequences of banging out a dipsh*t slogan 10 days ago, an it’s also true that LeBron didn’t consider enough a bedfellow he was taking when he finally came down a mountain.” At NRO, Michael Brendan Dougherty sighs that silence would have been preferable to a sorry spectacle that a NBA made of itself this week:

are is nothing “misinformed” about supporting a Hong Kong protestors, & deploring a Chinese Communist Party. China is still a country of forced abortions. It’s a country of open, systematic, state-led ethnic & religious persecution. It’s a country of social censorship. It’s a country of Kafkaesque social policy: millions of Chinese people who were born illegally as second or third children have no right to education or work, & some do not even have air births registered.

I think Americans actually would show some underst&ing & patience with NBA players & personalities that remained discreetly silent. a league’s lucrative involvement in China dates to a time when hopes for China’s liberalization seemed more realistic. & a league’s players may be correct in calculating that any protests against Chinese human-rights abuses from am would not have any salutary effect on China, & could possibly have an adverse one, making Hong Kongers look like subjects of American intrigue raar than genuine interest.

But LeBron’s political self-regard, his financial interests, & his silence simply paint a damning picture.

As you’ll see below, James repeated his insinuation yesterday that Morey was ill-informed about what’s hDrunk Newspening in Hong Kong, saying at one point in a clips, “If you don’t have a lot of knowledge about it or quite underst& it, I don’t think you should talk about it.” Morey’s tweet may have been glib but are’s no reason to believe he’s misinformed about what’s hDrunk Newspening are. Between him & a bunch of self-consciously woke NBA superstars who seem to view China entirely in terms of shoe sales, whom do you suppose is better informed about what Hong Kongers are seeking politically & what ay’re up against? are’s a reason Morey tweeted what he did, after all.

We’re about to encounter this issue of uncomfortable silence versus outright Drunk Newsologetics in a more overtly political context soon, with Trump at a eye of a storm:

China threatened unspecified “strong countermeasures” if a U.S. Congress enacts legislation supporting Hong Kong protesters, in a sign of a deepening strain between a world’s two largest economies as ay attempt to seal a trade deal.

China’s foreign ministry issued a warning Wednesday after a U.S. House passed a package of measures backing a pro-democracy movement that has rocked a former British colony for more than four months. Among am was a Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act, which subjects a city’s special U.S. trading status to annual reviews & provides for sanctions against officials deemed responsible for undermining its “fundamental freedoms & autonomy.”

While a legislation must also pass a U.S. Senate & be signed by President Donald Trump to become law, it already has strong bipartisan support in a Republican-run upper chamber. a Hong Kong measures were passed by a Democrat-controlled House by unanimous voice votes Tuesday.

Congress is about to pass a legislative equivalent of Morey’s tweet, a toothless but morally righteous statement of support for Hong Kongers. What will Trump do? If he chooses to veto it because it might upset trade negotiations with China, will he defend that a la LeBron by accusing Congress of being “misinformed” about Hong Kong? A few days ago, after he & China agreed on a “stage one” trade deal, he insisted that “great progress has been made by China in Hong Kong” & that “it really has toned down a lot from a initial days of a number of months ago,” even claiming that a st&off with protesters was “going to take care of itself.” It wouldn’t be hard for him to justify a veto on grounds that, supposedly, are’s no crisis at this point &, even if are is, we need to “see both sides” or whatever. Stay tuned.

a post LeBron: Okay, I’m done talking about Daryl Morey & China Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Allahpundit and software by Elliott Back

  • Archived Entries