Connect with us

Media

CNN Admits That Nancy Pelosi’s Shift to ‘Bribery’ Verbiage is a Political Stunt

With US military aid to Ukraine contingent upon that nation’s anti-corruption work, the idea of bribery seems laughable.

Published

on

Impeachment, now that it has become a public matter, is largely a game of perception.

You see, the Democrats will not impeach and remove the President; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has intimated that any trial in his chamber of Congress would be a swift one.  Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that enough Republicans would change their minds on the President’s conduct to warrant his removal.

That means that this is all for show, and the Democrats know this.  Impeachment, the process itself, has now been reduced to little more than a 24/7, cable news, anti-Trump campaign ad for whomever the Democrats eventually choose to run for President in 2020.  Their goals now are not to win an impeachment trial, (no one wins in impeachment), but to damage Donald Trump enough to let the American people vote him out.

This is why Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi has adjusted her language when referring to the President alleged misconduct on the subject of Ukraine, from “quid pro quo” to “bribery”.

Trending: Democrat Rep Charged With Stealing $500K From Non-Profit For Mentally Ill

Even CNN was forced to admit as much today.

The following is the offensive insinuation from a few days ago:

“The devastating testimony corroborated evidence of bribery uncovered in the inquiry, and that the president abused his power and violated his oath by threatening to withhold military aid and a White House meeting in exchange for an investigation into his political rival — a clear attempt by the president to give himself an advantage in the 2020 election,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters at her weekly news conference in the Capitol.

President Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the matter, asserting that he was merely conducting his due diligence regarding anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine, upon which US military aid money is conditioned.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Media

CNN Biggest Loser of All in Impeachment TV Ratings Race

So, how has CNN fared in the ratings as it goes all in for Impeachment coverage? Horribly, as it turns out. It ended November in dead last place, in fact.

Published

on

CNN went wall-to-wall with both the Russia collusion hoax as well as impeachment coverage. So, how has the network fared in the ratings? Horribly, as it turns out. It ended November in dead last place, in fact.

“CNN posted its lowest primetime ratings in three years over the Thanksgiving holidays, while Fox News posted higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC combined,” the Daily Caller triumphantly reported this week.

But a closer look at the numbers shows it is even worse:

“It was CNN’s worst primetime week in three years, and its worst week among the 25-54 demographic. The low ratings come as House Democrats have been conducting hearings on the impeachment of President Donald Trump,” Daily Caller added.

Hoo, boy!

Meanwhile, Fox News continues to dominate:

Fox News also topped cable news in total day ratings for the 47th consecutive week, averaging over 1.3 million viewers. The network also finished first among the 25-54 demographic for the 17th consecutive week, averaging 222,000 viewers.

This comes on the tail of the Q2 ratings which also tanked.

CNN actually came in 15th place on the cable ratings as they pushed a minute-to-minute avalanche of “Russia collusion” fake news.

In July, CNN lost 18 percent over its number of viewers at the same time in 2018.

The numbers were as follows:

Primetime

FOX: 2.4 million

MSNBC: 1.67 million

CNN: 761,000

Total Day

FOX: 1.32 million

MSNBC: 900,000

CNN: 541,000

The deeper CNN dives into the biased left ocean of craziness, the lower its numbers fall.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving network.

Trump wins again.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media

Congressman Devin Nunes Sues CNN in $435 Million Defamation Lawsuit

CA Republican Devin Nunes has filed a $435 million lawsuit against CNN alleging that the network aired a “hit piece” against him.

Published

on

California Republican Devin Nunes has filed a $435 million lawsuit against CNN alleging that the network aired a “demonstrably false hit piece” against him last month.

Named in the lawsuit along with CNN is the network’s “reporter” Vicky Ward.

“The 47-page lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,” Fox News reported, “accuses the liberal network of publishing ‘numerous egregiously false and defamatory’ statements about Nunes on Nov. 22, 2019 when journalist Vicky Ward reported claims that Nunes met with Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in Vienna in 2018 to dig “up dirt” on Hunter and Joe Biden.”

Contrary to CNN’s fake news, Nunes says he “did not go to Vienna or anywhere else in Austria in 2018” and that he “has never met Shokin.”

“CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable,” Nunes adds in his filing.

CNN has refused to issue a comment or statement about the lawsuit.

CNN’s source for the fake story is Lev Parnas, a man who is under indictment and is being charged with numerous federal crimes. Nunes adds that even a left-wing MSNBC employee said that Parnas is an untrustworthy source for anything.

“It was obvious to everyone – including disgraceful CNN – that Parnas was a fraudster and a hustler,” Nunes says in his filing. “It was obvious that his lies were part of a thinly-veiled attempt to obstruct justice and to trick either the United States Attorney or House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff into offering ‘immunity’ in return for information’ about [Nunes].”

Nunes added, “The ulterior purpose of the CNN Article is to advance the impeachment inquiry, to seed doubt in the minds of Americans, and to influence the outcome of the 2020 election.”

The California Congressman goes on to skewer CNN: “CNN reviewed, approved and ratified the fake news prior to publication. Prior to November 22, 2019, CNN knew that Parnas and his attorneys or other political operatives were shopping a story to the press that made claims about the Plaintiff, implicating him in efforts to get ‘dirt’ on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. CNN knew that no other news outlet would touch the salacious story because none of the ‘facts’ provided could be verified.”

“The breadth of CNN’s publication is staggering. CNN acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth,” the suit says.

Nunes wants damages for “insult, pain, embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, injury to his reputation, special damages, costs, and other out-of-pocket expenses” totaling almost half a billion dollars.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media

YouTube Inexplicably Pulls 300 Trump Campaign Ads, Refuses to Comment

YouTube’s massive media marketshare has allowed them to install a liberal filter over the national discourse.

Published

on

The media landscape of the 21st century bears little resemblance, if any, to what any of us have seen in the past.

The internet has added an entirely new layer to the puzzle, of course, as Americans are no longer beholden to the 6pm nightly news as their sole source of information.  At any time, from nearly any place, Americans can tune in and become informed.

The problem here is that the aggregation of the news is flowing through fewer and fewer channels as companies such as YouTube and Facebook dominate the landscape.  These sites are directing an enormous percentage of the media traffic online, giving them a unique monopoly on what the public sees and hears regarding American politics.  As such, they have an inordinate and unearned influence on our national political psyche.

And they certainly aren’t being benevolent about it.

More than 300 of President Donald Trump’s political ads have taken down by Google and its video platform YouTube, mostly over the summer, according to a report by 60 minutes.

The CBS reporters were unable to find specific reasons for the mass takedowns of Trump ads, a common problem with social media companies, which are often reluctant to explain precisely why a ban or other act of censorship has happened. “We found very little transparency in the transparency report,” concluded 60 Minutes.

CBS reporters investigated the removal of pro-Trump ads after YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki highlighted the company’s decision to ban some of the President’s ads during an interview.

This liberal filter now paints the entire American experience with a blue hue thanks to this meddling media malfeasants, and denigrates the First Amendment in the process.

YouTube’s attempts to stymy politically inconvenient information from being disseminated on their platform has drawn criticism from on-high as well, with President Trump’s 2020 campaign categorizing their actions as “blatant attempt to suppress voter information”.

Continue Reading

Media

CNN’s Ignorance of Epstein-ABC Scandal Raises Eyebrows with Media Observers

CNN’s unwillingness to report on this incredibly bizarre chain of events suggest that they, too, may be compromised.

Published

on

Jeffrey Epstein is a man whose lore will likely live on in American pop culture for decades, if not longer.

The wealthy and well-connected financier was already a convicted pedophile at the time of his alleged suicide, which took place while Epstein was being held in one of the nation’s most secure detention facilities just days after being taken off of suicide watch at the behest of his lawyers.  At that time, Epstein was being held on charges of child sex trafficking, cementing his reputation as one of the nation’s most heinous socialites.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time that Epstein had been in trouble.  Back in 2008, after years of legal lethargy, Jeffrey Epstein was given a sweetheart deal in Florida, skating on charges of “solicitation” while everyone understood explicitly that he was grooming underage women for sexual slavery.

This only added to the mythos surrounding him, with a vast conspiracy emerging online that connected Epstein to all manner of high-ranking public figures; from the founder of Victoria’s Secret all the way to former President Bill Clinton.

Back in 2015, long before his recent suicide, Epstein was about to be exposed by an intrepid report at ABC News when the UK’s Royal Family forced the network to abandon the story, based on Epstein’s connections to Prince Andrew.

When undercover news specialists at Project Veritas exposed this coverup, the hunt was on for the employee, (or, as it turns out, the former employee), responsible for blowing the whistle on the story.

A massive folly ensued as CBS then fired an employee who they believe was responsible, having had worked at ABC prior.  The move was erroneous, however, as the leaker themselves took to the internet to refute what had happened.

This is by far one of the juiciest stories in the media today, yet CNN doesn’t seem willing to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Brian.

Stelter.

Ignored.

All.

Of.

It.

Stelter’s show is called Reliable Sources, and promises viewers that its purpose is to  “examine the media world, telling the story behind the story.”

But that is not the case at all, and we all knew that before this weekend, which is why the far-left Stelter’s ratings (like the rest of far-left CNN) are in freefall.

Even for Stelter, though, ignoring this story is just beyond the beyond… Shameless cover ups are nothing new with Zucker’s Puppet, but this one is going to be remembered, will be defining.

What did Stelter talk about this Sunday? Well, he brought on tired old PBS lefty Bill Moyers to scream about how Drumpf is killing democracy and must be impeached. He brought on lefty Anthony Scaramucci to talk about how Drumpf is killing democracy and must be impeached. He brought on a panel of lefties, including al-Baghdadi fanboy Max Boot,  to talk about how Sean Hannity and Drumpf are killing democracy and must be impeached.

Knowing what we know now about ABC’s reticence to report the truth on account of Royal pressure, one can only assume that CNN is similarly compromised.

Continue Reading

Media

MSNBC’s Bias Gets Shredded Live, On-Air by Mark Meadows

It’s no wonder that Americans are increasingly finding themselves distrustful of the mainstream media.

Published

on

In the pre-Trump era, the bias of the mainstream media was amusing; perhaps a little garish at times, but still entertaining.  You could flip back and forth between competing infotainment brands and almost giggle at just how blatant they were being regarding their political affiliations.

Today, however, that mild bemusement is gone, and every word uttered by these paid entertainers is pushing our nation further and further into ruin.  Thanks to the latest push for impeachment being made by the Democrats, the vitriol has turned downright ugly.

One Congressman just couldn’t stand it anymore this week, and brutally corrected one MSNBC talking head live, on-air.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk praised Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., on Friday, after Meadows interrupted an MSNBC reporter on the air to defend his fellow Republican lawmakers and President Trump.

Meadows “caught [MSNBC] with their own bias in real-time,” Kirk said, during an appearance on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle.”

On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell was reporting live from Capitol Hill about the Trump impeachment inquiry.

“Republicans continue to hang everything on Ambassador [Kurt] Volker,” Caldwell told viewers, referring to the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who resigned from the State Department in September after his name appeared in a whistleblower complaint about a July phone call between Trump and the leader of Ukraine.

Then things got testy.

During Caldwell’s report, Meadows — a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee — walked by with his staff, so Caldwell attempted to flag him down for an impromptu interview, but he declined.

Caldwell then continued her report, claiming Republicans “are really struggling to defend the president.”

Meadows was off camera at the time but within earshot of Caldwell. Suddenly, he returned to Caldwell, leaned into her camera shot, and sternly responded:

“I’m not struggling on anything. The Republicans are not struggling on anything,” he said, continuing to further defend President Trump.

Charlie Kirk made the point that Caldwell was seemingly putting words into the mouths of the Republican Party members by insinuating that they are struggling, as opposed to asking them if they are struggling.

It’s no wonder that Americans are increasingly finding themselves distrustful of the mainstream media.

 

Continue Reading

Media

Sen. Paul Lays Out Facts: It’s NOT ‘Illegal’ for Media to Disclose Whistleblower’s Name

Senator Rand Paul made a point to correct at least one fake news reporter who was pushing the media’s newest Ukraine lie.

Published

on

The latest l lie being passed around by the left-media is the claim that it is somehow “illegal” to publish the name of the Democrat’s fake “whistleblower.” But Senator Rand Paul made a point to correct at least one fake news reporter who was pushing the media’s newest Ukraine lie.

While walking through the Senate office building on Monday, a “reporter” for the liberal Washington rag, The Hill, laid the “illegal” lie on the Kentucky Republican. And the Sen. just had to stop and correct the fake news.

As Paul was walking, the reporter asked, “The whistleblower laws protect the whistleblower. You know it’s illegal to out a whistleblower?”

Of course, this is a lie.

In fact, the reason the government does not disclose the names of whistleblowers is to protect their job, not their name per se. For instance, if a State Department worker blows the whistle on what he feels is illegal activity, the law helps shield the employee from being fired by the State Dept. while any investigation might be underway. The law isn’t meant to protect the whistleblower’s name, it is to protect his job.

And in THIS case, the law does not apply because the whistleblower, whose name is Eric Ciaramella, was already fired from the White House over a year ago for leaking to the press. In this case, Ciaramella’s job is not in jeopardy in the least.

Ciaramella is a 33-year-old registered Democrat who was first hired to work in the White House by Barack Obama. He also had jobs with Vice President Joe Biden’s office as well as former CIA Director John Brennan. After he was fired by the White House, he went right back to work for the deep state coup operators at the CIA. So, his job is safe.

Further, there is no law at all that prevents news people from releasing the name of any whistleblower.

In any case, Sen. Paul took the time to school this purveyor of fake news.

“Actually, you see you’ve got that wrong,” Paul said before going on to disabuse the ignorant “reporter” of her quaint, left-wing, Democrat-protecting notions.

“You should work on the facts,” Paul told the woman. “The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general. Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation.”

“The other point, and you need to be really careful if you really are interested in the news,” Paul continued, “is the whistleblower actually is a material witness completely separate from being a whistleblower because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 per month. So, the investigation into the corruption of Hunter Biden involves this whistleblower because he was there at the time.”

“Did he bring up the conflict of interest? Was there a discussion of this? What was his involvement with the relationship between Joe Biden and the prosecutor? There are a lot of questions the whistleblower has to answer,” Paul concluded.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Media

‘New York Times’ Opposes Airing National Anthem on TV Because It is Too Offensive

The ‘New York Times’ says it now opposes playing the national anthem on TV because it may upset some snowflakes who hate the U.S.A.

Published

on

The New York Times says it now opposes playing the national anthem on TV because it may upset some snowflakes viewers who hate the U.S.A.

On Wednesday, Times writer Julia Jacobs criticized the long-standing practice of TV stations airing “The Star Spangled Banner” because it might offend some viewers.

In her culture piece entitled, “Local TV Revives a Bygone Tradition: Airing the National Anthem,” Jacobs claims that the song is a “dividing line” between people who love America and the haters who may be triggered by seeing and hearing the anthem on TV.

The paper noted that “one of popular culture’s generational divides” is if you are old enough to remember when national anthem aired on television stations at the end of each broadcast day. The national anthem was historically played at the end of the night when TV stations stopped broadcasting until the next morning because TV did not run 24 hours a day until the 1970s. The broadcast day usually ended with the national anthem aired over patriotic images followed by a test patter image and a test tone audio.

The practice nearly disappeared once all TV stations went to 24-7 programming.

“Now, the early morning hours are filled with rebroadcasts and infomercials, eliminating any practical reason for a formal sign off,” the article noted.

However, some stations have recently revived the practice of airing the national anthem before getting into late, late night programming — most of which is often infomercials.

Jacobs decried this renewed practice saying that airing the anthem “might hear political overtones.”

“The decision to revive the anthem tradition comes at a time when overt allegiance to ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ has become one of the lines that separate blue and red America,” Jacobs insisted.

The article went on to call the anthem a “politically charged song” that is “provocative.”

But this is just how liberals warp the debate. The national anthem has never been a “politically charged song” or “provocative” until liberal elites and extreme left-wing activists decided to start claiming it was provocative and political.

Now, all of a sudden, the song is characterized as triggering just because hard-core left-wingers say it is despite that few agree with them. And since they control the media, that is how the debate is carried on.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend