Friday, May 24, 2019

When Will The Media Start Reporting The News Accurately?

Rep. Meadows Calls Media’s Border Wall Claims a Lie, Posts Pics to Back It Up

Rep. Meadows Levels Media Claims, Tweets Pics to Back It All Up
Volume 10%
 
Print
If you’re the kind of liberal who enjoys a good chuckle at the expense of President Donald Trump, Wednesday was your lucky day.
According to a Bloomberg report, with the $1.57 billion that Congress gave Trump for the border wall last year, Customs and Border Protection has managed to erect a mere 1.7 miles of new fencing along our border with Mexico.
“The administration recently provided updated information to Congress on the status of its efforts as of April 30, 2019,” Donald Letter, an attorney for the Democratic-run House of Representatives, told a federal judge in a filing, Bloomberg reported.

The information was given to a judge in California hearing a lawsuit by the attorneys general of 20 states, as well as the Sierra Club, to block any wall being constructed with funds not explicitly authorized by Congress.
So, that Bloomberg headline — “U.S. federal wall funding of US $1.57B yields 1.7 miles of fence” — doesn’t look good for the Trump administration.
TRENDING: Watch Trump Outfox Pelosi, Bring in Witnesses Who Blow Apart Her Version of WH Meeting
Beyond the headline, however, the facts are a lot more complex.
Rep. Mark Meadows, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, noted those facts in a Thursday tweet, complete with pictures.

Meadows wrote that “500 miles of new wall expected to be complete by 2020. Vehicle barriers being upgraded to larger border barrier as well.”
That wasn’t the only pushback on how the article characterized the wall construction. The president weighed in, too, as one might expect:

RELATED: California Wanted More Illegals, Now Border Patrol Will Grant Their Wish Three Times a Week
“Much of the Wall being built at the Southern Border is a complete demolition and rebuilding of old and worthless barriers with a brand new Wall and footings. Problem is, the Haters say that is not a new Wall, but rather a renovation. Wrong, and we must build where most needed,” he wrote.
“Also, tremendous work is being done on pure renovation – fixing existing Walls that are in bad condition and ineffective, and bringing them to a very high standard!”

According to The Daily Caller, an unnamed senior administration official told the news outlet that Bloomberg didn’t get its facts straight regarding the court filing.
“The Bloomberg article is wrong,” the official said. “The 1.7 miles are part of a 14-mile project specific to the San Diego Sector at a cost of $131 million (FY18 dollars).
“There are currently over 120 miles of new or replacement wall being constructed, and to say only 1.7 miles is completely false and misleading.”

Is President Trump keeping his promise on border wall construction?

  
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Meanwhile, a Thursday report from Customs and Border Protection obtained by the U.K. Daily Mail indicated that 42 miles of wall had been completed with 110 miles being constructed.
“Since January 2017, approximately 205 miles of new and replacement border barriers have been funded through the traditional appropriations process and via Treasury Forfeiture Funding, of which approximately 42 miles have been completed to date,” the report read.
“According to a chart in the report, the sections of wall that are funded and in varying stages of contracting and completion include 86 miles of ‘new primary wall’ and 24 miles of ‘new levee wall.’ Also included are 68 miles of ‘replacement primary wall,’ 144 miles of ‘replacement vehicle wall’ and 14 miles of ‘replacement secondary wall,'” the Mail reported.
The report also suggests that 336 miles of wall are funded in total, both through congressional appropriations and Pentagon funding.

But that doesn’t quite sound as good to liberals as 1.7 miles of new fencing for $1.57 billion, does it?
That’s the problem with the wall: It’s one of the multitude of policies that the media seems to have tacitly taken a position on. All “objective” reporting then originates from that perspective.
That’s why we “know” the wall is ineffective, that it’ll never get funded, that it’s way over budget and that none of it is being constructed. Therefore, the numbers cited in the Bloomberg article will continue to be “known,” no matter how true they may be.
The headline may not have looked good for Trump, but the facts that undergirded it don’t look particularly good for whoever wrote it.

Thursday, May 23, 2019

The RussiaGate Scenario Laid Bare

FBI Lawyer James Baker Lied about ‘Verified Application’ for FISA Warrant against Trump Campaign

87Shares
 58
 15
 11
Since Attorney General William Barr announced he intends to dig deeper into the genesis of the Russiagate affair, things are getting frantic in Washington.
Desperate to avoid federal prison, the main players in the FBI attempted coup of the presidency can’t seem to find enough air time to defend their innocence or point a finger at each other.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker is a good case in point. Baker tried to deflect the blame from himself last Friday when he went on Chuck Todd’s MSNBC show, but ultimately admitted the “verified application” for spying on Donald Trump in 2016 went forward although it was not verified at all.
The Daily Caller reported last week that Baker was skeptical and “concerned” about the validity of the accusations made in the Steele dossier. Despite those concerns, Baker along with other FBI officials who reviewed the Carter Page surveillance warrant application did not stop but proceededwith their application for a FISA warrant.
British spy Christopher Steele has come under intense scrutiny following special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. After two years of inquiry, Mueller’s report demolished the foundation of Steele’s core accusation that a “well-developed conspiracy of co-ordination” existed between Trump and the Kremlin.
The first of four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants were granted against Page based primarily on unverified information in the Steele dossier. Baker told Chuck Todd on MSNBC:
“It was more information that we viewed, that I viewed, skeptically from the outset, and I was concerned about it and had a jaundiced eye, or looked at it with a jaundiced eye right from the outset.”
Baker protested that since Steele had previously been “a source that we thought was reliable” and his information was “alarming” the FBI took it “seriously.”
Baker further defended himself saying “we tried to vet it.”
Nothing could be further from the truth as Steele has since admitted he didn’t verify the information himself before passing it long to the Bureau.
Though Steele first provided his bogus information for the Trump investigation on July 5, 2016, it supposedly didn’t make its way to the FBI team investigating Trump until mid-September 2016.
By then Baker and the rest of the FBI team were aware Steele was funded by and working for the Democrat campaign. The bureau counsel also knew that Steele had told a Justice Department official he was “desperate” to see Trump defeated in the 2016 election.
As the top Justice Department official that handled FISA before joining the FBI, Baker had to know hiding where their information came from from a FISA judge was highly irresponsible if not criminal. He testified before Congress that his review for the Carter Page application was unusual because he “rarely reviewed FISA applications” in his FBI position.
When asked point blank whether or not he had used the Steele dossier to obtain other FISA warrants, Baker evaded the question saying, “I don’t think I should comment on that, I’m not sure what else the government has confirmed … I don’t want to confirm or deny anything about other potential FISA applications.”
Much of the finger pointing occurring between Baker and others are the result of a National Review article. National Review reported, due to their rush to offer an assessment of the Russia/Trump allegations, Obama-administration officials included Steele’s allegations in their “VERIFIED APPLICATION” for warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
Baker’s defense is, believe it or not, because the allegations weren’t verified.
The reason Baker, former FBI Director James Comey, and others are squabbling over who promoted the dossier is obvious – a Clinton-campaign opposition research unvetted document, based on unnamed Russian sources compiled by a Democrat funded former British spy (Christopher Steele) – their whole premise has crumbled before their eyes.
Seven months after the Obama Justice Department and the FBI sought a FISA warrant to monitor Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page, Special Counsel Mueller inherited the convoluted case. The information in Steele’s dossier had already been determined to be “salacious and unverified” by James Comey.
So while Mueller proceeded with an investigation based on what the FBI already knew to false, the real culprits in collusion had time to run for the shadows and cover their tracks as best they could
Steele has identified two of his sources to be Russia’s former spy chief Vyacheslav Trubnikov and top Kremlin adviser Vladislav Surkov.
It appears that Steele was duped, and the dossier is a Russian disinformation operation that U.S. intelligence agencies fell for.
In the end, Democrats colluded with Russia in an attempt to illegally influence our presidential election.