Showing posts with label ABC News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC News. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
Liars Lie!
LIAR! 5 biggest debate lies (and the truth Biden hates)
On Thursday night, 10 of the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates were invited by ABC News to take the stage and debate — and they all lied straight to the faces of American voters.
In the past, presidential debates were once considered a prestigious affair.
But Thursday’s Democratic sideshow was filled with errors, lies, mis-truths, and worse.
Here are the five biggest lies Democrats tried to push on America last night… and the truth the mainstream media won’t share.
Lie #1 — The El Paso shooting was President Donald Trump’s fault
BETO O’ROURKE, former U.S. representative from Texas, on last month’s mass shooting in El Paso: “Everything that I’ve learned about resilience, I’ve learned from my hometown of El Paso, Texas, in the face of this act of terror, that was directed at our community, in large part by the president of the United States. It killed 22 people, and injured many more, we were not defeated by that. Nor were we defined by that.”
JULIAN CASTRO, former U.S. housing secretary: “Look, a few weeks ago a shooter drove 10 hours inspired by this president to kill people who look like me and people who look like my family.”
THE TRUTH: Trump didn’t direct the killer. He didn’t inspire him, either.
It is difficult to know for sure what led the gunman to open fire inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 people. The suspect posted a manifesto online before the shooting about his fear of illegal immigration.
The screed spoke of what the suspect called a “Hispanic invasion of Texas,” railed against illegals and warned of an imminent attack. But he wasn’t directed or inspired by Trump.
In his manifesto, he said his own views “predate Trump and his campaign for president.”
Lie #2 — America has one of the worst child poverty rates in the world.
BERNIE SANDERS: “We have the highest child poverty rate of almost any country on Earth.”
THE TRUTH: Wrong. This oft-repeated line by the Vermont senator is simply false.
There are nearly 200 countries in the world, many with people deep in extreme poverty that most Americans would struggle to fathom.
Poverty is also a relative measure in which someone who is poor in one nation might look rather prosperous in another.
According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s updated child poverty report in 2018, things are good inside America’s borders.
The United States was not at the bottom of the 42 nations listed in the report. Even poor children in the United States are better off than in Russia, Chile, Spain, India, Turkey, Israel, Costa Rica, Brazil, South Africa, China, and other countries.
Lie #3 — Former President Barack Obama didn’t separate illegal immigrant families
JOE BIDEN: “We didn’t lock people up in cages, we didn’t separate families.”
THE TRUTH: Biden’s comment about cages and family separation are both completely wrong.
The so-called “cages” — chain-link enclosures inside border facilities where illegal immigrants have been temporarily housed, separated by sex and age — were built and used by the Obama administration. The Trump administration has been using the same facilities as the Obama administration.
Democrats routinely accuse Trump of using “cages” for children when they’re caught crossing the border illegally. But the media and Democrats don’t acknowledge that the same enclosures were employed when Biden was vice president.
No one cared then. Now that a Republican is in office, they’re suddenly “concentration camps”?
The Obama administration also separated children from families under certain circumstances, like when the child’s safety appeared at risk or when the parent had a criminal history.
Lie #4 — “Medicare for All” will save taxpayers money
SANDERS: “Every study done shows that ‘Medicare for All’ is the most cost-effective approach to providing health care to every man, woman and child in this country.”
THE TRUTH: It’s the exact opposite, according to experts.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a report earlier this year that total spending under a single-payer system, such as the one proposed by Sanders, “might be higher or lower than under the current system depending on the key features of the new system.”
Those features involve details about payment rates for hospitals and doctors, which are not fully spelled out by Sanders, as well as the estimated cost of generous benefits that include long-term care services and no copays and deductibles for comprehensive medical care.
A report this year by the nonprofit Rand think tank estimated that “Medicare for All” would actually increase national health spending, the opposite of what Sanders claimed.
Rand modeled a hypothetical scenario in which a plan similar to legislation by the Vermont senator had taken effect this year. It found that total U.S. health care spending would be nearly $4 trillion under “Medicare for All” in 2019, compared with about $3.8 trillion under the status quo.
Lie #5 — Donald Trump wasn’t indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller only because of a legal loophole
KAMALA HARRIS, on Trump: “The only reason he has not been indicted is because there was a memo in the Department of Justice that says a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.”
THE TRUTH: Not according to former special counsel Robert Mueller.
He never said that in his 440+ report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, and corrected the misinformation when questioned by Congressional leaders while under oath.
Harris is referring to a Justice Department legal opinion that says sitting presidents may be immune from indictment. But Mueller said that they never reached a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.
In Mueller’s congressional testimony in July, he said his team never even started the process of evaluating whether to charge Trump.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Jonathan Karl Will Not Be Welcomed Back To The Journalist Club!
Watch As This Worried WH Correspondent Changes Mueller Narrative As He Sees It Going Down in Flames
For at least the past two years now, a significant portion of the liberal and anti-Trump constituencies of the American populace have become convinced that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to “steal” the 2016 election, and are just as convinced that Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation will ultimately unveil that traitorous act and provide the groundwork for an impeachment and removal from office.
The predominantly liberal mainstream media has played a huge role in fueling those beliefs among the people, but even some in the media appear to have begun to realize they may have over-hyped the smoke they’ve been steadily fanning when there really wasn’t much of a fire beneath that smoke to begin with.
To date, virtually no verifiable evidence has been produced definitively linking Trump or any of his associates to any sort of Russian plot to undermine the election, and nothing seen or heard from Mueller’s investigation thus far would indicate that he has dug up any sort of evidence of such alleged “treason” either.
ABC News’ chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl appears to be one of those in the media who has come to the realization that Mueller’s eventual report won’t be the presidency-ending “bombshell” it has been hyped as for the past year, as evidenced by his commentary Sunday morning on ABC’s “This Week” with host George Stephanopoulos.
ABC News' Jonathan Karl on Mueller's upcoming report: "People who are closest to what Mueller has been doing, interacting with the special counsel, caution me that this report is almost certain to be anti-climactic."
1,864 people are talking about this
Karl was first asked about the reaction of those in Trump’s White House to recent stories from The New York Times and Washington Post that had reignited the Trump/Russia collusion narrative.
Karl replied, “Well, look, the story in The New York Times was an extraordinary reflection of the level of distrust between the FBI leadership and the president, and how suspicious the president’s behavior was … and actually going to the point of investigating whether or not effectively the president was a Russian agent.”
“But what I am getting is that this is all building up to the Mueller report and raising expectations of a bombshell report, and there have been expectations that have been building, of course, for over a year on this,” he continued.
Do you suspect Mueller's final report will be an "anti-climatic" dud?
“But people who are closest to what Mueller has been doing, interacting with the special counsel, caution me that this report is almost certain to be anti-climatic,” Karl warned.
“That if you look at what the FBI was investigating in that New York Times report, look at what they were investigating, Mueller did not go anywhere with that investigation,” said Karl.
“He has been writing his report in real time through these indictments, and we have seen nothing from Mueller on the central question of was there any coordination, collusion, with the Russians in the effort to meddle in the election, or was there even any knowledge on the part of the president — or anybody in his campaign — of what the Russians were doing,” he said.
What Jonathan Karl just did during that appearance on “This Week” was prepare the field for what increasingly looks to be a huge letdown for the left.
Indeed, a significant portion of the left has wholly bought in to the unproven narrative that Trump is a compromised foreign agent who colluded with a rival power to undermine an election and seize power in a subversive manner … and those folks view Mueller as knight in shining armor on the verge of swooping in and saving them from the terrible Trump with a report that will serve as the basis for an impeachment and indictments.
However, given the manner in which important information leaks out of Washington D.C., it is a certainty that if Mueller had any sort of definitive evidence that could bring down the Trump presidency, that information would have been leaked to the public in some form or fashion over the past year.
Yet, we have heard no such thing, and all of Mueller’s public actions and court filings show that his team has been reduced to prosecuting petty process crimes and other criminal matters entirely unrelated to Trump and his 2016 campaign.
In all likelihood, Mueller’s report will be an “anti-climatic” dud, and the same media figures who’ve perpetuated the “Trump/Russia collusion vs. Mueller as savior” narrative for the past two years are now scrambling to change that narrative and let everyone down easy after they’d helped build up expectations of Mueller’s eventual findings to insanely high levels.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
When The Shoe Is On The Other Foot, Being Asked Questions Is NOT Comfortable
Trump Hits ABC Chief WH Correspondent So Hard He’s Literally Left Sputtering
It’s a normal part of responsible news reporting to ask tough questions and to not let the subjects of those questions get away with non-answers. However, there is a massive difference between being a responsible reporter and being an activist.
ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl got a little more than he bargained for when he stepped into the world of activism when questioning President Donald Trump about the government shut down and border wall funding.
And Trump didn’t take it lying down.
Some would say Karl got humiliated by Trump. And the whole thing was captured on video for the entire world to see.
Very unbiased, No opinion, Just Straight news reporter @jonkarl Thinks he can do a better job than @realDonaldTrump . WATCH HIM GET WRECKED ....#Shutdown #buildit
4,298 people are talking about this
The smackdown from Trump began with Karl asking, “So, why not sign the other bills though, so some of these workers can get paid, the government…” That is where Trump cut him off, asking, “You think I should do that?”
Karl could be heard stammering when Trump hit again. “You think I should do that, Jon?”
“I mean, it’s not for me to say,” Karl responded. But perhaps he should have thought of that before he asked the question that implied it was.
Is Donald Trump beating the media at their own game?
Trump again called him out. “And I watch your one-sided reporting. Do you think I should do that? Hey, Jon, no, seriously, do you think I should just sign?”
Karl didn’t sound as confident as he had a moment before in his reply. “Well, the argument … ” he began, and again Trump stopped him in his backtracking, seeking an answer to his original question.
“No, tell me. Tell me.”
A
Here Karl’s response was not quite caught on microphone well, but then the last part of what he was saying did come in clearly: ” …if you sign these bills that have nothing to do with border security.”
Trump still refused to let him off the hook.
“Jon, you think I should just sign?” he asked.
Karl stammered in reply, “I, I, I’m saying that if you sign that these workers can start getting paid, uh, the government can start … “
Karl just busted himself on his activism and again Trump interrupted to call him out on it.
“So, you would do that if you were in my position? You’d do that?”
Karl sounded a bit beaten down as he attempted to redeem himself. “I’m not in your position. I’m asking you if you …” Trump cut him off to again press the issue.
“I’m asking you,” Trump said. “Would you do that if you were in my position?”
As Karl again began sputtering and stammering, in his attempt to formulate a response. Trump then, perhaps mercifully, took the kill shot.
“Because if you would do that, you should never be in this position. Because you’d never get anything done.”
He then ended the interview and sent everyone on their way.
In an odd way, it was almost as if the roles were reversed.
Of the two, it is a president who should be the one pushing an agenda and the reporter who should be the one pressing hard for an actual answer.
That ability to turn the tables so quickly and with such agility seems to be one of Trump’s talents.
Oddly enough, activist reporters still have not learned their lesson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)