House Speaker Kevin McCarthy offered a masterclass in regard to how to deal with hostile reporters on Monday when he obliterated one of them from CNN.
The California Republican’s argument was one that CNN and its partisan coverage of the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents is disingenuous.
CNN anchors, contributors and guests routinely feign outrage at Trump by portraying him as playing loose with national security.
But the network also platforms a classified documents leaker in former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and one who abused his power in 2020 in former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
That wasn’t lost on the speaker in the Capitol on Monday when a CNN reporter asked him about Trump’s indictment.
McCarthy said he was concerned the government was being “weaponized” by the Biden administration for political purposes and that he and other Republicans are working to ensure there is not a two-tiered justice system in the country.
McCarthy just LIT UP this CNN reporter about them hiring McCabe and Clapper after they leaked classified information and interfered in 2020 pic.twitter.com/JyZg171M0z
“You’re with CNN, right?” McCarthy asked the CNN reporter during an interview in which she interrupted him repeatedly.
After the reporter confirmed her affiliation, the speaker grinned and pointed out that it was only appropriate to speak about the two CNN contributors.
When he invoked the name McCabe, the reporter cut in and made a perilous attempt to redirect the conversation.
She asked the speaker about topics such as defunding the FBI and defending Trump.
McCarthy ignored every word she said and hit her with his own line of questioning. It took him all but one minute to put her on the defensive.
“Are you prepared to defend your network, CNN?” he asked.
After a number of interruptions, McCarthy then took command of the conversation and lit CNN up.
“You can’t put words in my mouth, even though your network hired Andrew McCabe, who was fired from the FBI for leaking classified documents,” he said.
McCarthy followed up, “Did you remove him from your network? No, you continue to put him on to give judgment against President Trump.”
In spite of multiple interruptions, McCarthy continued his criticism of the beleaguered network:
“So your network hires Clapper, who literally lied to the American public — one of 51 other individuals that had briefings — and used it politically to tell the American public that a laptop was Russian collusion, even though it had all this other information about the Biden administration.”
He then asked, “Are you prepared to get rid of those people from your network?”
After he received no answer to his question, he laid into CNN for weaponizing information in the same manner Clapper and McCabe weaponized their access to intel.
“My concern as a policymaker is that when you weaponize government and now you’re weaponizing networks, that is wrong,” he said.
He concluded, “I have a real problem that your network actually pays people who [used] classified information and then lied to the American public to try to influence a presidential election, and then you put him on your network to try to give an opinion about a president.”
Had McCarthy been holding a microphone, an appropriate measure would have been to drop it and then walk away.
The corporate media has been up in arms about Trump and his relationship to classified information since the FBI raided his home last summer.
The same people have not been concerned by the fact then-Vice President Joe Biden made off with classified documents — none of which he was authorized to declassify — when he left office in 2017.
Clapper’s signature on a letter that falsely portrayed the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop as Russian disinformation also never bothered anyone at CNN.
Nor did the fact McCabe was fired from the FBI in 2018 for leaking classified information to the media.
The answer to the discrepancies here are obvious: the establishment media mostly exists to protect the Democratic Party and its interests and to target people such as McCarthy — the most powerful Republican in the country.
While the speaker is often maligned by people on both sides of the aisle, he can’t be accused of being dull.
Not one person at CNN has the privilege of speaking about Trump’s classified documents case from any position of moral authority.
McCarthy was savvy enough to know that and to turn what could have become a hit job on him into a referendum on the blatant bias in media.
This article appears in the June/July 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “The end of affirmative action?”
**Fortune Magazine is a woke-promoting organization. Notice the blatant propaganda in their choice of the picture above**
Somewhere along the way, “Diversity and Inclusion” added “Equity” — which is the left’s code word for “preferential treatment” — TPR
Why diversity advocates see a Supreme Court case on college admissions as a looming crisis for corporate America.
It may seem like a harsh assessment of human nature, but people don’t generally do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do, says Natalie Gillard, who has worked in diversity, equity, and inclusion for over a decade.That’s why laws and mandates exist.
And that’s why Gillard has been anxiously watching the Supreme Court. While the ruling had not come down when this issue went to press, court watchers say the conservative majority is very likely to strike down or severely restrict race-based college admissions programs in June. Many fear that prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions will unleash a legal dismantling of over half a century’s worth of laws and rulings aimed at remedying the systemic inequities racial minorities face in the U.S.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in October in the case brought by Students for Fair Admissions, an organization founded by the anti-affirmative-action legal activist Edward Blum, against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accusing the institutions of discriminating against Asian American and white applicants.
While this decision on affirmative action will most directly affect higher education admissions, legal analysts say it could open the floodgates to upending diversity initiatives in other areas, including the corporate landscape.
And Gillard and her colleagues in DEI are bracing for a crisis. Gillard created Factuality, a 90-minute interactive game and “crash course” in structural inequality that has been used as an employee-training tool at companies such as Google, Nike, and American Express, as well as at Yale University, among others. Factuality has seen an uptick in demand in recent years, but Gillard is under no illusions about why companies hire her: “I really feel that there are people who participate in these programs and initiatives because it’s required and mandatory,” she tells Fortune, “and that with this decision they’re just emboldened to stop.”
Last year the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, had a transformative cultural and legal effect—leading to a cascade of states passing near-total abortion bans and restrictions on reproductive rights. The affirmative action ruling may not be as far-reaching, but it is a bellwether for a shift in the conversation about race and racism broadly, says Richard Leong, a senior strategist at Collective, a DEI consultancy headquartered in Brooklyn.
“I think it really begins to throw into jeopardy whether or not we can continue to use race and ethnicity as a demographic identifier,” Leong says, adding, “The DEI industry as it is today is already under fire.”
Gillard says she has already seen the effects in her business: She used to collaborate often with companies and organizations in Texas and Florida, she tells Fortune, but she no longer works in those states because organizations are unsure about what they can and cannot do, and fearful of causing controversy.
“I’m concerned the decision will only further curtail our efforts,” Gillard says. “After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”
A ripple effect
Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court decision goes as expected, it could have a ripple effect on corporate diversity programs. The decision could “augur where the court might go with respect to certain programs for private employers,” says Kevin Cloutier, a partner in the law firm Sheppard Mullin’s labor and employment and business trial practice groups. The courts may rule to strike down affirmative action programs for federal contractors, or be more receptive to reverse discrimination claims against private companies
The most direct impact of the Supreme Court prohibiting race-based admissions decisions is that universities will very likely become less diverse over time—as has happened in public university systems in states where affirmative action is already banned. If so, companies will be left with a more homogenous talent pool to recruit from.
And there are likely to be knock-on effects for companies, says Camille Bryant, an attorney and member of the labor and employment practice group at McGlinchey Stafford. It may be harder to live up to the ESG commitments that companies have made to investors, for example. And less diverse workforces may turn off customers, who increasinglyexpect brands to be inclusive. More homogenous workplaces are also less appealing to millennial and Gen Z workers, who have high expectations of workforce diversity.
“After this you’ll really be able to identify who has always been on board and who never really was.”
Natalie Gillard, creator, Factuality
Less diverse talent pipelines could have a substantial effect on outcomes at some organizations. A recent study found, for example, that a higher prevalence of Black doctors led to lower mortality rates among Black residents in those counties. But with less diverse medical programs, hospitals will likely employ fewer Black doctors, negatively impacting patient care.
Backlash to the backlash
The Supreme Court case comes at a critical time for the field of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It has been three years since the murder of George Floyd brought about a reckoning on racism in the summer of 2020, and many Black and brown workers remain skeptical of their companies’ lip service to the ideals of diversity, dismissing them as “performative allyship.”
“DEI is a journey, not a destination,” says Ericka Brownlee-Keller, DEI head at a renewable energy company. “It really depends on the fabric and culture of the company you’re in.”
BlackRock is one company that decided to take a hard look at its own record, and the results were revealing. In March 2022, the asset management firm hired a third-party law firm to audit the progress it had and hadn’t made on its multiyear racial equity plans, launched in 2021. The audit found that BlackRock was adhering to the letter of its diversity goals—increasing Black and Latinx hires by 30% and improving representation at senior levels—but was failing in some respects when it comes to the spirit of those goals. It has struggled, for example, to retain its Black and brown employees.
BlackRock is also an early case study of a trend DEI professionals say is growing, and the Supreme Court decision could accelerate: backlash to perceived “wokeness.”
21%
Percentage of companies that have a senior role fully dedicated to DEI. Source: Paradigm’s State of Data-Driven DEO, 2022
In April, the conservative group America First Legal (founded by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller) said it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requesting a civil rights investigation into whether the BlackRock Founders Scholarship, an internship for minority students, discriminates against students who don’t qualify as minorities.
Incidents like that are why DEI professionals Fortune spoke with don’t believe it’s overblown to see the looming Supreme Court decision as a time bomb. They’ve kept tabs on the responses to the court overturning Roe v. Wade last year, and watched as state legislators quickly moved to severely restrict or ban abortions in the wake of the decision. They’ve braced themselves as anti-LGBTQ cultural narratives have gathered steam in recent years, leading to new state laws restricting access to gender-affirming care and accommodations. And they’ve watched as bans have throttled discussion of sexual orientation and Black history in schools.
“What we’re seeing is in a lot of ways a backlash to us being able to have made so much progress,” says Brownlee-Keller. “We often talk about ‘When’s the other shoe gonna drop?’ A lot of this is people’s fears being realized.”
Some argue that diversity initiatives won’t completely crumble on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision, that the field has come too far and the people doing the work are too committed. “This might hinder the progress we’ve made in DEI, but I think we’ll find other avenues,” Brownlee-Keller says. “People in these roles are resilient.”
Strategize now
Many DEI professionals are coming up with lists of actions for employers to consider, no matter how the Supreme Court rules. The first is to review DEI programs and ensure the company has a robust and evidence-based case for these initiatives, says Evelyn Carter, a social psychologist and president of the diversity and inclusion consulting firm Paradigm.
For example, a company may discover that the promotion pipeline for Black leaders falls off at a specific ranking, based on 10 years of company data. If the company determines that it has failed to support this talent for promotions, it might implement a program to address the problem. Using data to explain these moves helps ensure that company initiatives are not “misconstrued as things that are being done because Black folks or folks of color are deficient,” says Carter, “but rather recognizing it as what it is: righting systemic inequities.” It could also help ensure that the program would survive a legal challenge.
It’s crucial, too, for companies to diligently vet public statements related to diversity initiatives. For example, in today’s climate, making public promises that a company’s board will be 25% female could create a legal vulnerability, Bryant, the McGlinchey Stafford lawyer, says. “Sometimes messages that are very well intended can get an organization in hot water if it’s not necessarily done and crafted in the right way.”
75%
Percentage of employees who don’t think their organization’s racial equity policies are genuine. Source: Catalyst Survey, 2022
That’s a lesson several of Carter’s clients learned last year after announcing plans to pay for employees’ travel costs if they have to cross state lines to get abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Instead of just applause, they faced controversy and complaints.
“There were employees who said, ‘This goes against my values, and I am upset that you would be seen as a company supporting abortion,’ ” Carter says. “A lot of clients said, ‘We thought we did the right thing. But now these people are upset.’ ” Developing internal FAQs to respond to questions or complaints from employees will help managers and human resources teams avoid being caught off guard if and when such a controversy erupts.
Creating new pathways for diverse recruitment will also be key, and might include doubling down on partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities and other minority institutions and on sponsorship and mentorship programs, as well as more actively developing the pipeline for diverse talent.
“This is the time to help your DEI team.”
Evelyn Carter, president, Paradigm
Most important, company leaders should ask what their DEI teams need. These often small and under-resourced teams may soon have to respond to an influx of reverse discrimination claims and handle a slew of complex internal and external communications. That might involve training managers to see and address bias and harassment and training HR to understand how discrimination impacts employee performance.
Employees may also have to navigate more internal strife, microaggressions, and harassment, so companies might consider increasing access to mental health resources such as therapy services and warmlines for employees—free, confidential lines where employees can seek guidance, support or a listening ear.
“That’s a lot. So this is the time to help your DEI team,” Carter says. “Ask your team what they need, and then deliver on it.”
The #1 conservativesite on Substack — The Right Way is recommended by over 180 fellow Substack authors
The corporate media has been buzzing the last few months about a defamation lawsuit filed against Fox News by an electronic voting machine company. In fact, the left-wing corporate press is positively salivating at the monetary damages that might be inflicted on Fox News if the case is lost. Apparently, those purple-haired kids don’t understand that $1.6 billion is hardly a fine for Rupert Murdoch — he probably pays that much semi-annually for those routine divorces he’s always getting.
Why would the American corporate media cheer on a lawsuit that has broken all the rules for discovery, and threatens the First Amendment protections of journalists? And since when do vendors operating as third-party proxies for state governments in national elections get to sue the Fourth Estate for defamation?
That’s a tough question — legally speaking. Of course, it’s an easy question in terms of politics. What can you tell Democrats that they won’t believe? For example: that boys are girls and girls are boys? There’s no basic fact of biology that Democrats won’t deny — if necessary. There’s no scientific law they won’t denounce in a pinch — gravity! chemistry! the third law of thermodynamics! — to remain in the good graces of their shameless mob.
After all, the memory of the average Democrat voter is about the same as a fruit fly dipped in Fentanyl.
That’s why the corporate media can publicize the private text messages of Fox journalists, and expect that dangerous precedent to be viewed as normal too.
That was not the only time Judge Davis spoke out in colorful terms about Fox’s coverage in the aftermath of the election, which he has described in scathing terms throughout this case. “I could have a lot of fun with this case,” Davis said at one point, during a discussion of Dominion’s opportunity to cross examine Fox witnesses.
Nothing like the judge openly admitting that he views Fox News as guilty before the trial. Do you remember a time when judges tried to hide their liberal bias? I sure do. That’s the old America. In the new Amerika (thank you Kafka!) the communist judges advertise their lack of impartiality to the communist press. And why not? Maybe there’s a Soros retirement bonus waiting for any robed idiot who turns our judicial system into a modern Stalinist replica that’s suitable for the Banana Republic of Biden.
Though it’s hard to believe, MSNBC’s trashy commentary was even more toxic and absurd than Mediate’s garbage:
“There could be a lot of implications depending on how it plays out,” said Imraan Farukhi,an assistant professor at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. Besides the financial impact, Farukhi added, “The other question is what will they do with their talent if they lose? The majority of the stars at Fox are implicated. Any other news organization would have probably seen their hosts losing their jobs for improper reporting.”
Who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that if getting fired for “improper reporting” was actually a thing in American corporate media, there would no longer be American corporate media?
For that matter, who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that good entertainment lawyers don’t leave to become assistant professors at third-tier colleges? (I peeked at his bio.) How much does Farukhi even know about media? Or America for that matter? Did he just cross the southern border or something? I ask because he seems to be — well, you know — new here.
Of course, Assistant Professor Farukhi is not the only lunatic who’s out howling in the moonlight about the Fox lawsuit.
Everywhere you look, you find manifest absurdities on display in this lawsuit.
1st: The judge involved the case has already ruled that Fox’s claims about the electronic voting machine company are false.
In this case, it’s obvious that Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis is writing checks with his mouth that he simply can’t cash. The Constitution mandates that individual states conduct our elections. It is illegal for individual states to outsource our elections to foreign companies owned by foreigner individuals using private software that cannot be reviewed or audited.
This is basic law 101.
Why would such an absurd scenario be tolerated by our national security state (just think of all the cybersecurity spooks at the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS) for even a moment? The answer, of course, is that it would not be tolerated — unless the national security state was the ultimate power behind it all.
That’s why you see 2020 election votes being counted in Spain by a DoD “contractor” called Scytl. That’s why you have a FBI agent posing as Arizona’s Director of Elections for the 2022 midterm disaster in Maricopa County.
And that’s why you have Delaware judges pretending to be cybersecurity experts who want you to believe that flaws in our election systems (that are published by CISA on its official website no less!) are really just “conspiracy theories.”
2nd: The plaintiff was allowed to seize the data from any journalist or producer or anchor at Fox News that it wanted. When has that ever happened in America?
A private company has never been allowed to hoover up the data from a legacy media network and embark on a fishing expedition. Never. Until now.
How was that data used?
On Monday March 6th, Tucker Carlson released the first footage of the January 6th insurrection showing police ushering protestors inside the Capitol.
Notice the perfect timing. The data from discovery was used as leverage.
That same day, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer publicly warned Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch against running more footage: “Rupert Murdoch has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight […] our democracy depends on it.”
These are not subtle threats.
3rd: Chuck Schumer’s public threat to Rupert Murdoch gave the game away — it’s the federal government behind it all.
Why did the leader of the U.S. Senate claim that the owner of a news network had “a special obligation” to stop a TV anchor from investigating January 6th? That’s just the sort of thing that violates our democratic norms isn’t it? What was he talking about? The “special obligation” is no doubt Fox’s role in trying to sell the American people on the phony results of the stolen 2020 election — and the early Arizona call for Biden/Harris in particular.
There’s a word for this sort of threat and the word is: kompromat.
After all, subverting America is a delicate business.
Our spy agencies understand that they’ve lost their legitimacy with the American people — which is why they’re trying to seize power through the TikTok bill this week after getting caught trying to infiltrate Catholic churches last week in between investigating angry parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” and stealing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s cellphone in a parking lot for no good reason.
It’s hard work rigging America’s elections at taxpayer expense — especially once its citizens start to notice.
The comfort food-style restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, known for its overwhelming amount of ornamental knick-knacks and vintage signs plastered on the walls, is in some social media trouble today. Folks on the internet are claiming Cracker Barrel is racist.
What’s the meaning behind Cracker Barrel?
According to Southern Living, “cracker-barrel” was coined in 1916 because of barrels containing soda crackers — a popular item for sale at country stores. Customers at said country stores would hang around the barrels as a kind of ritual (kind of like the trope of employees gossiping near the water cooler). The first Cracker Barrel location opened in 1969 in Lebanon, Tenn., and it derived its name from the cracker-barrel community experience back in the day.
According to Dictionary.com, “cracker-barrel” means “of or suggesting the simple rustic informality and directness thought to be characteristic of life in and around the country store.”
But some Twitter users have also pointed out that the term “cracker” might have another, more racist connotation. According to NPR, the term “cracker” was used in the mid-18th century to refer to poor white people in states like Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia.
“It is suspected that it was a shortened version of ‘whip-cracker,’ since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip,” historian Jelani Cobb told the outlet.
But in the late 1800s, writers from the northern USA region referred to some southerners as “crackers.”
Oh, Please!
“[Those writers] decided that they were called that because of the cracking of the whip when they drove slaves,” historian Dana Ste. Claire told the outlet, though he noted those the term would be applied to weren’t typically wealthy enough to own slaves.
Users on Twitter also claimed that a “cracker barrel” was the barrel used to hold whips, though there is currently no historical evidence to back up that claim. [See the above screenshot from a Twitter post.]
Back in 2015, someone named Ryan Koch, who lived in Iowa, started a petition to change its name because he believed Cracker Barrel to be “racist” toward white folks. Per the Change.org petition, Koch wrote, “I say all European Americans start protesting C****er Barrel. It uses an offensive slur, and it is deeply offensive and mocks our long and proud heritage.” He later clarified the post was “satire.” Ummmmm, OK.
In a tweet, one user claimed you can even see a whip in the logo, going from the first R in “barrel” to the K in “cracker.”
While it’s currently unclear whether or not there is any historical evidence to that claim, the company has since removed the connecting line from the R to the K in the logo.
Cracker Barrel’s PR team reportedly told Pop Icon that the logo was meant to “invoke nostalgia,” and was inspired by “an older gentleman who sat on the front porch during the summer.”
Has Cracker Barrel ever been racist?
So, while it seems like the name of Cracker Barrel isn’t inherently racist, it sounds like a lot of Black customers have experienced racism at the restaurant locations, which is horrifying.
In 2004, there was a filing and settlement of a racial discrimination lawsuit against Cracker Barrel after finding evidence of racist behavior and discrimination in at least 50 locations across the U.S. According to CBS News, 21 people filed a $100 million federal lawsuit against the chain. At the time, a spokesperson for Cracker Barrel stated, “ Our mission is pleasing people, and that means all people. We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”However, evidence suggests that Cracker Barrel definitely knew what was happening and wasn’t doing anything about it. Attorney David Sanford stated, “It can’t be the case that Cracker Barrel doesn’t know about it. We have enough evidence right now to suggest that Cracker Barrel, to the very highest level, is responsible.”
According to CBS News, the lawsuit includes statements from Black customers who stated they were forced to wait while white customers were seated right away. One specific person said that she arrived at Cracker Barrel at 9:48 p.m. and was told that she couldn’t be served because the restaurant was about to close. However, she then saw four white men were allowed in. “We had hungry children, and he still refused to serve us,” the person said.
“There are perhaps thousands more African-Americans who have been denied service, treated rudely by servers and hosts, and subjected to racial slurs at Cracker Barrel restaurants,” attorney Grant Morris said.
Hopefully, the chain learned from their (sic) mistakes and has implemented a zero-tolerance policy among their (sic) staff. Nobody deserves to go to a restaurant and be discriminated against — period.
If you are looking for ways to donate your time or money to Black Lives Matter and other antiracist organizations, we have created a list of resources to get you started. [bolded in original]
Well, that last paragraph lets you know where this clueless white woman who posted this on DISTRACTIFY stands on the political spectrum.
It would seem she is so far gone that she doesn’t proofread her articles before submitting them. A number of commas are missing and misusing their for its. I left those in with the notation hat they are in the original.
Chapman is located 30 miles from LA. A private Liberal Arts school.
Violence from the left.
Credit: Jack Posobiec and MeechMemez Twitter
Views: 13
We heard how the New York progressives were going to put a hurting on peaceful Conservatives and MFG would be assaulted and run out of town during the Trump court appearance this past Tuesday.
We had some pushing and shoving, but no beat down like the left promised. But there was some excitement from a MSM news crew member making death threats against a Journalist.
An independent photojournalist named Oren Levy was violently assaulted by a deranged CBS News crew member while covering the Trump arraignment in New York City on Tuesday.
The Post Millennial was the first outlet to cover the incident. In the video below, a large, deranged black man grabs Levy by the jacket and shoves him back. He screams “don’t ever f**k with me” at Levy for an unknown reason.
BREAKING: Member of the press assaults independent photographer @ViralNewsNYC while screaming “I will KILL YOU” outside NY courthouse today
Olbermann is delusional. In February he demanded Fox News be deplatformed and Shut down For 'National Security' Now he's accusing Trump of Threatening to kill Manhatttan DA Bragg, and never let out on bail.
Views: 40
Former MSNBC and ESPN and the defunct Al Gore-owned Current TV anchor, Keith Olbermann called for Fox News to be shut down and de-platformed back in February.
The belligerent fascist, who is known for losing high-profile jobs and for his unhinged Twitter rants, referred to the network as a “threat” to the country’s security in a Twitter video he used to advertise his podcast.
In a screed in Late February against the Fox network, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia,the deranged leftist portrayed releasing all available footage from the Jan. 6 Capitol incursion as a bad thing.
McCarthy offered thousands of hours of videos to Carlson in a show of transparency. According to Olbermann, the act is one that will assist the “next insurrectionists.”
Olbermann also referred to Greene as a “traitor” in the short clip.
“She was raised on a diet of Fox News,” he claimed of the Georgia lawmaker, who was well into her twenties when Fox News was founded.
Olbermann went on to call for the country’s most-watched cable news network to be muzzled. “Now that Fox’s true evil has been revealed in the Dominion lawsuit, and Fox’s true evil has been revealed while Kevin McCarthy has turned over 41,000 hours of Jan. 6 surveillance video to Tucker Carlson — exclusively — so he can show the next insurrectionists how to avoid all those cameras and reach all those panic rooms,” he said.
“The time has now come,” Olbermann concluded. “We must de-platform Fox news, and we must close down Fox News.”
And if you watched formerly relevant sportscaster and cable news anchor Keith Olbermann’s unhinged Twitter rant on Friday (3/24/23) morning, you might be under the impression that former President Donald Trump made “terroristic threats.” [See video clip posted on Twitter HERE. ]
Naturally, that is not true.
The perennially unemployed host at networks such as ESPN, MSNBC, and the defunct Al Gore-owned Current TV relies on hyperbole to get his messages across on social media these days.
Actually, it is generous to say he is engaging in mere hyperbole, as he could just as well be completely insane.
Olbermann was begging people to listen to his podcast on Friday and took a few creative liberties in a Twitter video, calling for Trump to be jailed immediately and held without bail.
He claimed the former president threatened to kill Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office might or might not indict Trump in the coming days or weeks.
“Donald Trump must be arrested for his terroristic threats against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg,” Olbermann said. “In social media posts yesterday, Trump called him [an] ‘animal.’”
Olbermann also said Trump posted a photo of himself threatening Bragg with a baseball bat.
Note that the picture Olbermann uses clearly shows that the thing is a link to Nationalfile.com.
“It is a call to murder by stochastic terrorism, a murder by remote control as disgusting as Charles Manson,” Olbermann blathered. “Arrest Trump now.”
Olbermann said Trump is an “active, mortal threat” to those investigating him — and any “witnesses.”
“Trump cannot be granted bail,” he concluded.
Where did Olbermann cook up his wild theories? He cruised the former president’s very public Truth Social account and cherry-picked the following posts as proof that Trump is now a terrorist:
As for that “threatening” photo Trump supposedly posted of himself with a baseball bat — it was a link Trump shared from the site National File, which had reported that Bragg was elected in a race with low turnout.
Quite obviously, the person who should be locked up is not Trump but Olbermann as a danger to himself and others. Olbermann’s star has fallen dramatically. The man is so detached from reality that even MSNBC recently rebuffed his advances.
So it is quite alarming that he was given such a large platform by the establishment media just a few years ago.
The U.S. State Department, through its Global Engagement Center (GEC), helped facilitate funding for a group that reportedly works to demonetize sites it claims are disseminating “disinformation,” including conservative news outlets, according to its website.
The Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a United Kingdom-based nonprofit that styles itself as a “non-political” monitor working to “disrupt the business model of disinformation,” lists as a funder the Disinfo Cloud, a now-shuttered GEC project. However, GDI has worked to demonetize conservative news sites by collaborating with ad exchanges to flag alleged purveyors of disinformation, the Washington Examiner reported.
GDI maintains a “dynamic exclusion list” of the worst offenders of disinformation online, according to its website. The organization then provides this list to ad tech companies, which can then “defund and downrank these worst offenders” and thereby defund sites allegedly promoting disinformation.
While the exclusion list isn’t publicly available, popular conservative news site Breitbart is on the list, according to the Examiner, and it is “plausible” that any of the “riskiest” outlets would also be on the exclusion list, according to a member of the GDI advisory panel who spoke to the Examiner.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks during a press conference before a meeting with Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Eli Cohen (not pictured) on January 30, 2023 in Jerusalem, Israel. (Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)
In this list of news outlets that were deemed the “riskiest” for alleged promotion of disinformation, GDI identified several prominent conservative news sites including the New York Post and the Daily Wire. By comparison, the “least risky” sites were overwhelmingly left-wing.
Moreover, GDI flagged the Examiner itself as disseminating “anti-LGBTQ+” disinformation, according to an October 2022 GDI memo, and pointed to an Amazon ad displayed on the Examiner page. The “anti-LGBTQ+” content in question was found in an opinion article.
In September 2021, the State Department’s GEC hosted the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge, an event seeking to “advance the development of promising and innovative technologies against disinformation and propaganda” in Europe and the U.K. The event was held in “collaboration with U.S. Embassy Paris, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)” and several other entities.
GDI, along with the U.K.-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), were two of the three winners; ISD also works to monitor and combat perceived misinformation and disinformation, and lists as government partners the U.S. State Department and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The three winners will receive grants totaling $250,000, according to the Atlantic Council, which partnered with the State Department to arrange the event.
GDI also lists among its funders George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Pierre Omidyar’s Luminate and Craig Newmark Philanthropies.
The Global Disinformation Index and the State Department did not respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.
Now 80, Jones has owned the Cowboys for more than three decades and is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (Andy Jacobsohn for The Washington Post)
Views: 70
A family member of mine sent me this link to a Sports Illustrated article. I saw this and thought the Woke crowd strikes again. I can not stand Jerry Jones and do not like America’s Team.
To go after a person who was only 14 back in 1957 is ridiculous. Well they mention a WP article as their source and it’s totally shit bat crazy. They use that incident back in 1957 as a reason Dallas never had a black coach under Jerry Jones. The headlines from the Post article.
Jerry Jones helped transform the NFL, except when it comes to race
Decades after standing on the frontlines of one of Little Rock’s darkest segregation clashes, the Dallas Cowboys owner has led the league toward new revenue models but has yet to hire a Black head coach
56
However, evidence suggests that Cracker Barrel definitely knew what was happening and wasn’t doing anything about it. Attorney David Sanford stated, “It can’t be the case that Cracker Barrel doesn’t know about it. We have enough evidence right now to suggest that Cracker Barrel, to the very highest level, is responsible.”
As for that “threatening” photo Trump supposedly posted of himself with a baseball bat — it was a link Trump shared from the site National File, which had reported that Bragg was elected in a race with low turnout.
