Leftwing Media Try to Block OANN from White House Briefing Room

People who love the Founding Fathers’ America should seek to get their news info from sources that have their interests in mind. ALL the networks of the Mainstream Media (MSM) DO NOT have your best interests in mind or to heart for that matter. Sadly and increasingly that includes the Fox News Network which has been slowly sliding into the Left-Wing tank. (I suspect the Conservative remnants on Fox will ultimately lose their jobs for one bogus reason or another.)

One media source just might be the One America Now Network (I’ve seen abbreviated both as OANN and OAN). I’ve known about OANN for quite a while. The incident that increased that network’s bona fides for me is the effort of the Leftist managed White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) attempt to bar OANN White House Correspondent Chanel Rion from White House pressers. The MSM networks have been vilifying OANN as Right-Wing conspiracists AS IF Left-Wing MSM conspiracy lies should be watched, listened and read as valid!

Chanel Rion - OANN

With my thoughts in mind, below is a FrontPageMag article that enlightens on OANN and the attempt to bar Chanel Rion.

JRH 4/6/20

Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

****************************

Leftwing Media Try to Block OANN from White House Briefing Room

Threatened by conservative media outlet’s growing clout.

OANN logo

By Joseph Klein

Apr 6, 2020

FrontPageMag

One America News Network (OANN) is a conservative TV network that was formally launched on July 4, 2013 at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). OANN is owned by Herring Networks, Inc., a family run business. Robert Herring Sr. is the founder and CEO. The network’s president is his son, Charles Herring. OANN and Newsmax TV have served admirably as alternative conservative voices on cable TV. Before the launch of both these networks, Fox News stood alone to counter the prevailing leftist sources for TV news and political discussion.

    

OANN is carried by DirecTV, AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FiOS, CenturyLink PRISM, Frontier Communications, and GCI, as well as by numerous local and regional distributors. However, OANN could be reaching many more households if some major cable distributors carrying its competitors’ programming would agree to distribute OANN as well. Charles Herring told me that he believed some cable companies were engaging for political reasons in “viewpoint discrimination.” Democracy suffers, he argued, as a result of such efforts to suppress diverse programming voices.

OANN has most recently been the victim of blatant viewpoint discrimination at the hands of the leftwing White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), which arbitrarily voted on April 1^st to bar OANN’s White House correspondent Chanel Rion from the daily White House Coronavirus Task Force press briefings. Her “sin” was asking President Trump a question that hit too close to home, after various White House correspondents had used the race card against President Trump for calling the virus that originated in China the “Chinese virus.” At the March 19^th briefing, after introducing the concern that “major left-wing media, even in this room, have teamed up with Chinese communist party narratives,” Rion asked President Trump to comment. “It amazes me when I read the things that I read,” President Trump replied.

The leftwing media retaliated against OANN’s White House correspondent for speaking truth to power. First, an anonymous note was left on Rion’s desk asking her whether she thought her question was helpful in halting the spread of the coronavirus. Three days later, the White House Correspondents Association mandated that the seat assigned to OANN since 2017, which for years was shared by only one other news organization, now accommodate five networks, including Al Jazeera. OANN’s seat was singled out for such treatment. On March 23rd,  OANN was placed in the “supplemental Seat Rotation,” a shared seat with a total of 10 media outlets. OANN for all intents and purposes lost any reasonable opportunity to participate in the briefings as a result of the WHCA’s discriminatory edict. When OANN managed to secure an invitation from the White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham for Rion to stand in the back of the briefing room, the White House Correspondents Association dropped the hammer and sought to close the briefing room door to OANN altogether.

CNN’s Trump-hating Jim Acosta and Oliver Darcy reported that the White House Correspondents Association voted on April 1 to “remove One America News, a small right-wing media organization, from the rotation for a seat in the briefing room.” They went on to rationalize this outrageous action by claiming that the “decision was made after a fringe personality for the far-right media outlet, Chanel Rion, continued to attend the briefings, in defiance of the WHCA's new rules limiting the number of journalists in the room.” Charles Herring has confirmed that OANN’s White House correspondent was present as “an invited guest to the President’s briefings by Stephanie Grisham, White House Press Secretary.” Chanel Rion stood apart towards the back of the room to adequately address any social distancing issues. “The WHCA organization members were aware that Ms. Rion was extended an invitation by Stephanie Grisham but took retaliatory action anyway,” Charles Herring said.

The briefing room is on the White House premises, which belongs to the people and not to the White House Correspondents Association. Yet the White House Correspondents Association tried to flex its muscles to keep Rion, an accredited journalist, out of the White House briefing room. It didn’t work. Rion communicated with Stephanie Grisham and received another invitation to attend the April 2^nd White House press briefing. Rion not only appeared at the briefing. President Trump called on her for a question, which disturbed the lamestream media no end. “Trump makes sure to take a question from OAN staffer Chanel Rion even though she was banished from the White House Correspondents’ Association for attending briefings she wasn’t supposed to be at,” leftwing Vox reporter Aaron Rupar tweeted.

If capacity problems exist because of social distance requirements, then CNN, which has inexcusably skipped President Trump’s introductory live remarks at the briefings in favor of its own vapid talking heads, should begin sharing its seat with nine other media outlets. Remember how CNN’s Jim Acosta whined when his White House press credentials were suspended for good reason back in 2018?  Now he leads the leftwing media mob in smearing OANN and trying to block its access to the White House briefing room in contravention of OANN’s constitutional right of freedom of the press.

OANN fits neither the “small” nor “far-right media outlet” caricatures that Acosta fabricated. The network is currently available in approximately 35 million homes. OANN was ranked as the fourth-highest service in the genre of networks categorized exclusively as Cable, News/ Business/ Info networks, according to data compiled by third party national ratings service Comscore as of March 2019. Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and CNN ranked ahead of OANN, but OANN outperformed other cable networks including CNN Headline News, Fox Business Channel, CNBC, BBC World News, and Bloomberg. For the week of March 23 -29, 2020, as measured by ComScore across 70 markets on one of the country’s major national distributor’s set top boxes, One America News Network ranked 25th out of 307 national cable networks of all genres. In other words, OANN has climbed to reach the top 10 percent of national cable channels in the Comscore rating.

One reason for OANN’s growth may well be the bright line it has drawn between its straight delivery of news and its conservative-leaning opinion shows. The network presents 19 hours of unvarnished news Monday through Friday. Conservative-leaning opinion shows occupy only a limited number of hours in the evening. The opinion shows include "The Daily Ledger," hosted by Graham Ledger, and "Tipping Point," hosted by Liz Wheeler.

OANN draws its news packages from journalistically respected sources such as Reuters, Euronews, and the Associated Press. OANN is a subscriber to the live "pool" footage provided by major national networks such as ABC and CBS. The network also operates its own news bureaus in California and Washington, D.C., as well as a small office in New York. The news anchors are not allowed to express their opinions as a matter of corporate policy, Charles Herring told me. "We're trying to return news back to just news, and really distinguishing that divide between opinion and hard news," Amanda House, the Washington bureau chief, explained as quoted by the National Journal. "We have a ton of people who watch us that have no right-leaning tendencies whatsoever."

Even liberal Marty Kaplan, who holds the Norman Lear chair at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, has acknowledged OANN’s success in maintaining a wall between its news coverage and its opinion shows. Kaplan wrote in a 2015 article for HuffPost that “the Herrings have so far walked the talk about walling off opinion programming from news… Minute for minute, and nearly 24/7, OAN delivers more hard news about America and the world, more impartially, with less attitude, less lighting up of our lizard brains, and less of a makes-you-want-to-take-a-shower factor, than any other news on TV.”

  

OANN’s record of unbiased news coverage does not matter a bit to such leftwing smear machines as Media Matters, however. They shamelessly slam OANN with slurs like “racist,” “conspiracy-mongering” and “shilling for Trump.” But Rachel Maddow and her MSNBC network took matters far beyond such badmouthing. They brazenly slandered OANN when Rachel Maddow told her audience that OANN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” Maddow and her network refused OANN’s demand for a retraction, employing doublespeak to argue that the term “literally” as used by Maddow was a “kind of figure of speech that connoted opinion.” To the contrary, Maddow represented as fact, not opinion, that OANN “really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” in reckless disregard of the truth. OANN filed a defamation lawsuit last September. OANN’s lawyer explained that “One America is wholly owned, operated and financed by the Herring family in San Diego. They are as American as apple pie. They are not paid by Russia and have nothing to do with the Russian government. This is a false and malicious libel, and they’re going to answer for it in a court of law.”

  

For years, Fox News was alone in presenting a conservative perspective on cable television. Newsmax TV and OANN have added two more fronts on the conservative side in the battle against leftwing dominance of news and the national conversation on American TV. Rachel Maddow, Jim Acosta, Media Matters and their comrades in arms do not believe in the marketplace of ideas. They want to corner the market all for themselves and engage in the currency of lies, ad hominem attacks, and false accusations to go after those they consider their ideological enemies. These left-wingers have tried and failed to bring down Fox News and Newsmax TV with such despicable tactics. They are trying to do the same to OANN. They are afraid that OANN, with its expanding household reach, is fast becoming an effective therapeutic to their pandemic of leftwing bias and lies. They have reason to be afraid.

____________________________

© Copyright 2019, FrontPageMag.com

Donate to Front Page Magazine

Beware the FBI

John R. Houk

© July 2, 2019

Largely due to an email alert from the Counter Jihad Coalition on July 1, I discovered a June 28 post from Understanding The Threat exposing un-American corruption in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under the Obama years looking the other way as American-hating radical Islamist permeated the law enforcement agency in one fashion or another.

Before I cross post the UTT expose I have a few brief thoughts. I have abandoned completely listening or reading news from what I believe to be a corrupted Mainstream Media (MSM). As far using television as a tool to receive news that leaves Fox News. Yet Fox News has become noticeably infected with variations of Left Wing news. Shepard Smith is probably the most egregious example. Even with the slight lurch to the Left, Fox News to date is still the most reliable news source on television. Just be sure to question any news that sounds a bit fishy or lined with propaganda designed to influence your socio-political and cultural thinking.

For example morality hasn’t changed in the Bible, but you will notice Fox News frowning on those taking a Biblical moral stand against the variations of lifestyles connected to those practicing in the LGBTQ (or whatever extra alphabetical letter added these days) community.

Fox News has been fairly consistent these days proving there has been a campaign among the Dems, the Obama Administration and the law enforcement post-Obama as well; actively fabricating false scenarios to remove President Trump from Office. Yet even my favorite Fox News program in Hannity when discussing the FBI goes out of its way the corruption has been in the upper echelons of FBI management and NOT the rank and file. AND for the longest time I was persuaded that was the case.

More and more everyday I am not so sure the FBI rank and file is dedicated to enforcing the law as much as enforcing political expectations along side law enforcement. OTHERWISE how could FBI corruption have degenerated so much that law enforcement was a hair’s breath from deposing a Constitutionally elected (Electoral College) President who broke NO LAWS to get elected?

A quick search (using DuckDuckGo rather than Google) corruption may have been an issue for some time:

o   Awesome National Consequences Enabled by Repeated Corrupt Acts by FBI-DOJ Personnel; DefraudingAmerica.com

o   10 Disturbing Signs That The FBI Is Corrupt; By SAMUEL POPEJOY; Listverse.com; 2/22/18

o   FBI Scandal: Deep State Corruption Of FBI, Justice Was There From Very Start Of Hillary Email Probe; Investor’s Business Daily; 4/26/18

o   Another massive lie revealed in the Mueller Report as the entire conspiracy against Trump unravels by the day; By JD Heyes; FBICorruption.news; 6/9/19

And this was merely a brief DuckDuckGo perusal. I am developing the opinion the FBI needs scrapped and new law enforcement agency built up from the ground up replace the FBI.

JRH 7/2/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support SlantRight 2.0 

***********************

Islamic Infiltration: Suit-Wearing Jihadis Own the FBI

Written by UTT President John Guandolo

June 28, 2019

Understanding The Threat

When I arrived in Saudi Arabia in early 2002 on a trip with the FBI Director, which included approximately a dozen countries across the Middle East and beyond, I was shocked to learn that both the FBI’s Legal Attache and the Assistant Legal Attache to Saudi Arabia converted to Islam while in country.

It was no wonder they were less-than-helpful when we arrived to plan the Director’s visit.

Then there was the case of Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, a muslim FBI Special Agent who refused to wear a wire while meeting with muslims who were subjects of FBI investigations.

Worse yet was the case of Nada Prouty, who was an FBI Special Agent from a Hizbollah family who also worked for the CIA for a period of time. Prouty was fired from the FBI for “marriage fraud” but was never prosecuted for using FBI systems to ensure members of her family – Hizbollah – were not being investigated by the FBI, nor was an espionage investigation conducted.

And these are not even the worst of the cases.

In 2010, when investigative journalist and researcher Patrick Poole saw a photo of a recent “FBI Citizen’s Academy” class in front of the U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center, he saw a familiar face.

Hamas leader Sheikh Kifah Mustapha.

Mustapha is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history – US v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), Northern District of Texas, 2008 – where HLF and its leaders were proven to be a part of the designated Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas.

Mustapha was a top official at HLF.

As a part of the FBI’s Citizens Academy, Mustapha was given a tour of FBI Headquarters, the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), and other government spaces.

Hamas leader Sheikh Kifah Mustapha standing with other members of the FBI’s Citizens Academy outside the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center in 2010.

It was reported Mustapha asked “very detailed questions” about the inner-workings of these government organizations. No kidding. Read: espionage.

The FBI initially lied to Patrick Poole and told Poole Mustapha was not a part of the Citizen’s Academy. When confronted with the photographic evidence, the FBI admitted they actually took the photo and defended Mustapha being in the Citizen’s Academy saying he is a prominent member of Chicago’s “Palestinian community.”

A senior government official told Poole Mustapha’s name and details of his Hamas affiliation are in FBI and NCTC data bases, and that NCTC had to shut down its systems to let Sheikh Kifah Mustapha in the door.

As if that is not disturbing enough, the FBI’s #3 man, Associate Deputy Director Paul Abate, participated in a “love-fest” of sorts with Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood jihad Imam Johari Abdul-Malik at Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. See the UTT video HERE. In the UTT video, Imam Abdul-Malik tells the story of receiving a call on his mobile phone from FBI Director Mueller, informing him a jihadi/terrorist (Amine El Khalifi) attempted to attack the U.S. Capitol wearing an explosive vest and carrying a weapon, and that the jihadi/terrorist prayed at the Dar al Hijra immediately prior to launching his attack. But Director Mueller, according to Abdul-Malik, said, “Guess what Imam? He (Khalifi) was not taught that at your masjid (mosque).”

Actually, being a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood mosque, the Dar al Hijra does teach war against non-muslims is obligatory for all muslims until the world is under Islamic rule.

FBI Associate Deputy Director Paul Abate submits to jihadi Imam Johari Abdul-Malik inside Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center

“The FBI failed to intercede against Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Malik Hasan as a result of its politically correct strategy of reaching out to suspect Islamic groups and clerics instead of combating head-on the Muslim radicalization movement in the United States.”

Rowan Scarborough, Human Events, 11/10/09

How do things like this happen?

In February 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller III met with “muslim leaders” and instituted new “cultural sensitivity” programs at the FBI. What were the sources of his input?

FBI Press Release 2-13-02

Mueller: Cultural Sensitivity Training Mandated to FBI

U.S. Hamas leader Nihad Awad and other leaders of Hamas/CAIR, leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood’s American Muslim Council (AMC) founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and other similar suit-wearing jihadis were among those meeting with the FBI Director.

Over the years, the FBI has conducted public events, multi-day seminars at Washington, D.C. think tanks, and other such programs alongside easily-identifiable jihadis/terrorists.

Since the training programs I created in 2006 and 2007, the FBI to teach agents, analysts, police officers and prosecutors about the Islamic networks and their doctrine (sharia), no other programs have been conducted like them in the FBI. In fact, under FBI Director Mueller, all remaining factual information about Islam was scrubbed from FBI training programs.

In 2008, in the FBI’s centennial publication, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) has a half-page ad. This is the same ISNA the Department of Justice identified as a Muslim Brotherhood organization directly funding the terrorist group Hamas.

FBI: 100 YRS Protecting America 1908 – 2008

ISNA Congratulates FBI

To make matters worse, the FBI takes out recruiting ads in ISNA’s monthly magazine Islamic Horizons.

FBI Recruiting Ad in ISNA Islamic Horizons Magazine

ISNA’s former President Mohamad Magid is beloved by FBI leadership. In 2005, the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office Michael Rolince gave Magid an award for being an awesome citizen and helping the FBI. In 2016, FBI Director James Comey gave Magid the FBI Director’s Award.

Michael Rolince, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office gives Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Magid an award in 2005.

FBI Director James Comey gives jihadi Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Magid the FBI Director’s Award in 2016.

This may explain why the three (3) muslim organizations listed on the FBI’s website as “Outreach Partners” are all Muslim Brotherhood organizations: Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Muslim Advocates, and Mohamed Magid’s All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) located in Sterling, Virginia.

What is the result of the FBI having no fact-based training on Islam, sharia, and the modus operandi of the Islamic Movement while simultaneously working for 17 years with the very enemy the FBI claims it needs to prosecute?

Currently, meaning today – June 28, 2019 – the daughter of a Muslim Brotherhood leader in the Washington, D.C. area – Rizwan Jaka – is working as an intern at the FBI’s Washington Field Office in the Counterterrorism Division.

Understanding the Threat is currently producing a more detailed report on the FBI’s catastrophic failure to understand the threat, and the consistency with which the FBI directly supports America’s enemies in this war.

These incidents, as detailed herein, constitutes criminal negligence, aiding and abetting terrorism, and a gross dereliction of duty by anyone involved.

Because the FBI has proven itself incapable of fulfilling its counter-terrorism mission, and unwilling to do what is necessary to right itself, UTT recommends a mission-built organization of less than 100 men and women be created, with all the Title authorities required to defeat the Islamic and Marxist Counter-States operating inside the United States.

We are over 17 years down the road in a war we are losing. It is time for aggressive and focused strategy to win. UTT has such a strategy.

_____________________

Beware the FBI

John R. Houk

© July 2, 2019

_____________________

Islamic Infiltration: Suit-Wearing Jihadis Own the FBI

John Guandolo is a US Naval Academy graduate, served as an Infantry/Reconnaissance officer in the United States Marines and is a combat veteran, served as a Special Agent in the FBI from 1996-2008, and was recruited out of the FBI by the Department of Defense to conduct strategic analysis of the Islamic threat. He is the President and Founder of Understanding the Threat (UTT).

Copyright 2019. Understanding the Threat. All rights reserved.

The Mission

Understanding the Threat provides threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, training, and education for federal, state, and local leadership and agencies in government, the private sector, and for private citizens. UTT is the only organization in America which is training leaders, elected officials, law enforcement, military personnel, and citizens, about the Global Islamic Movement and the jihadi networks in communities around the nation.  UTT is also the only organization showing security professionals and state leaders how to locate and map out jihadi organizations, locate jihadis, and dismantle the network at the local and state level. While UTT briefs and teaches about many of the threats external and internal to the United States, its primary concern is the threats to the Republic and the West in general from the Global Islamic Movement.

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? Let’s look at some definitions:

Merriam Webster:

a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

Wikipedia:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,^[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.^[2][3]

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.S. political context ^[4]) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude.^[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.^[6] … READ THE REST

Psychology Today:

What Is Groupthink?

Groupthink occurs when a group with a particular agenda makes irrational or problematic decisions because its members value harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. Individual members of the group are strongly discouraged from any disagreement with the consensus and set aside their own thoughts and feelings to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and other group members. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts, judgments or disagreement with the consensus and ignore any ethical or moral consequences of any group decision that furthers their cause. Risk-taking is common, and the lack of creativity and independent thinking have negative personal and political implications for both group members and outsiders. Groupthink decisions rarely have successful outcomes.

… READ THE REST

In fairness, no individual or cohesive group is immune to the negative effects of groupthink. The situation today is America is nearly divided 50/50 between Conservatives and Liberals. The irony is politically Conservatives won the 2016 election cycle, BUT the traditional means of mass communication are dominated by Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and various degrees of Communists). AND the Liberals are brainwashing their readers, listeners and viewers with Groupthink principles glorifying Liberal principles and values over traditional Conservative moral principles and values.

Elizabeth Vaughn tackles the Leftist Groupthink in this essay entitled, “The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil”.

JRH 8/27/18

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

********************

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

By ELIZABETH VAUGHN 

AUGUST 26, 2018

Freedom Outpost

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people gets together and starts to think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or overestimate their positions or moral rightness.

There have been periods of history when large groups of people, so invested in a particular goal and so convinced of their own righteousness, have collectively lost sight of reality, often with tragic results.

The larger the group, the less responsibility individual members will shoulder for their own actions. Responsibility for individual wrongdoing is diffused or “shared” by the members of the group. Because “everyone” takes responsibility, no one ultimately takes responsibility.

America’s left, Democratic politicians, the mainstream media and those who receive their news from the mainstream media, have become radicalized over their hatred for Donald Trump. Their unwillingness to accept the result of a fair election directly clashes with the principles upon which America was founded.

In the wake of last week’s uproar over former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s plea deal, I would like to remind them of some of their own vulnerabilities.

1. Have you forgotten about the Obama campaign’s offer of $150,000 to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut him up during the 2008 campaign? Rev. Wright, whom Obama met in the late 1980s, preached a very incendiary form of Black Liberation Theology. How can we forget the clip of Rev. Wright’s sermon given the Sunday following 9/11 when he said the attacks were payback for all of America’s misdeeds?

Ed Klein, in his May 2012 book about Obama’s White House years, entitled “The Amateur,” details his interview with Rev. Wright. Wright revealed that he had received a bribe from a friend of Obama’s during the 2008 campaign.

Klein spoke to Sean Hannity when the book was published.

What happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the audiotapes --videotapes of the Rev. Wright God damning America and slamming whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends, a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on vacations with him.

I didn't name him in the book, but I can tell you who he is. His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight inner-circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ [Wright’s church].

Whitaker sent an email to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, offering him $150,000 to stay quiet and not do any public speeches until after the election in November 2008.

Chicago politics is one hand feeds the other, as you know. And Eric Whitaker, a very close friend of the Obamas, sent an email to a member of the church saying that the Rev. Wright could get $150,000 if he would shut up and not criticize Obama anymore.

Then, after Rev. Wright said, 'no thank you,' Obama himself paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright. The face-to-face meeting took place in March 2008, 10 days after Obama's famous "race speech" took place.

Now, we know that this is true, not only because the Rev. Wright told me so, but also because the Secret Service logs, logged in this meeting. So we have confirmation that it actually took place.

There are no reports of a paper trail for this 2008 payment, but Rev. Wright did indeed shut up. Prior to this bribe, Obama’s association with the anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor nearly sank his campaign. Surely, this provided a benefit to Obama’s campaign.

2. It is well known that, when members of Congress are accused of sexual harassment by interns, staffers or anyone else, they can count on a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” to pay for non-disclosure agreements, “hush money,” from their victims.

Certainly, these payments provide a benefit to the campaigns of the accused. They also have probably saved several marriages.

The online fact-checking website, “Snopes,” considered this question: Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed? They concluded this was false.

Their reasoning may surprise you. The statement is false because the fund is completely legal. It is “not secret” or “utilized for illicit purposes.” So, as long as they are transparent about it, it’s fine.

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports.

The total amount paid out annually ($17M has been paid out over the last 20 years) is made public, but the specifics of individual transactions remain confidential.

Why aren’t taxpayers allowed access to the details? Why are members of Congress allowed privacy while the President is not?

3. Why wasn’t the money paid for the dossier by the Hillary Clinton campaign or the DNC that she controlled listed as a campaign contribution? To say that it provided a benefit to the campaign would be a gross understatement. Instead, they ran it through a law firm and billed it as a legal expense.

This bogus dossier has become the most consequential political document in recent memory. It has passed through many hands, not the least of which were Bruce Ohr’s. Inquiring minds want to know what role he played in this soap opera. Is it possible that he may have composed portions of it as it is rumored? Why doesn’t the Mueller team schedule a pre-dawn raid on his home and office so we can find out?

4. Michael Cohen was Trump’s attorney. When we retain the services of an attorney, an accountant, or any other professional, we state our goal and leave it to the attorney to execute the plan.

They are the trained professionals and we are the clients. Most of us don’t question their methods. We assume our lawyers know what they’re doing.

If a lawyer makes a mistake, intentionally or otherwise, it is his or her own responsibility. “Well, my client directed me to do it” is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

And also, because of such a thing as attorney/client privilege, we should feel we can speak frankly to our lawyers. Do we now have to worry that our conversations with lawyers might be recorded?

Why wasn’t the office and residence of Hillary Clinton’s attorney or her IT professional raided? Why don’t we try to prosecute some of Hillary’s closest aides? What about the IT employee who tried to bleach bit subpoenaed documents and destroy the hard drive? She was the subject of an FBI investigation. It would have been fair game.

Summing Up: 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

The only thing that will end it – declassifying the necessary DOJ/FBI documents, unredacted please – is the one thing that Trump has been, so far, reluctant to do. Perhaps he is simply waiting for the right time. Maybe he’s planning an October surprise to achieve maximum impact. I certainly hope so.

Elizabeth Vaughn is a conservative political blogger and mom of three residing in southern Connecticut. Following a career in the financial services industry, she is now a regular contributor to Freedom Outpost. Contact her at eliza.vaughn13@gmail.com

______________________

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

_________________________

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

About Freedom Outpost

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

Yesterday guilty verdicts came to light against Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, both have a connection to President Trump. If you were paying attention to the Leftist MSM you would think blood was in the water stirring a shark frenzy was erupting with bloodthirsty glee. They all believe Trump association to guilty parties means Trump’s Administration is about to come tumbling down.

The poor delusional Left are forgetting to report the guilty verdicts have ZERO to do with collusion between Trump and Russia to manipulate the 2016 election.

Manafort was found accused of 18 counts but the jury could only agree on eight counts of guilt:

In a verdict announced at the same hour as President Trump’s longtime fixer pleaded guilty to other financial charges, Manafort was convicted of filing a false tax return in each of the years from 2010 to 2014, failing to report a foreign bank account in 2012, and two counts of bank fraud.

…

But the panel of six men and six women deciding Manafort’s fate in Alexandria, Virginia, deadlocked on 10 counts. U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III declared a mistrial on those charges.

…

The 10 deadlocked charges were three instances of failing to file a foreign bank account in 2011, 2013 and 2014, two counts of bank fraud, and five counts of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

… (Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts in first trial conviction from Mueller probe; By Jeff Mordock; Washington Times; 8/21/18)

Michael Cohen chose a guilty plea deal rather than face a jury:

… Cohen pled guilty to eight felonies. While the five counts of failure to pay taxes on over $4 million in income are the most consequential to him, most significant to the country are two counts of illegal “in kind” campaign contributions. …

… The media narrative suggests that these payments violate federal law because they were made to influence the outcome of the election. That is not quite accurate. It was not illegal to pay hush money to the two women — Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (a.k.a. “Stormy Daniels”). It was illegal for Michael Cohen to make in-kind contributions (which is what these pay-offs were) in excess of the legal limit. (Bold text by blog Editor)

… (What to Make of the Cohen Plea and Manafort Convictions; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 8/22/18 10:28 AM)

So what’s the deal with the press? Why the shark-fest of glee? Could it be because the Left is planting Fake News against Trump to stir-up hatred to enhance future impeachment sentiment and plant more Dems in Congress for such a proceeding?

JRH 8/22/18 (Hat Tip Elvis Knot in G+ Community The Resistance)
Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*************************

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

By Jim Hoft

August 21, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

Cohen-Trump

Conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin interviewed the former FEC Chairman on his show.

Professor Bradley Smith said the payment Cohen pled guilty to DO NOT qualify as campaign violations.

Last night Mark Levin interviewed a former FEC Chairman who explained why a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels cannot be considered an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign, thus violating campaign finance law.

Via The Right Scoop:

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason.”

Here’s the audio:

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation

[Posted by TheNewsCommenter

Published on Aug 21, 2018]

Professor Bradley Smith wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal in April.

Shortly before the 2016 election, one of President Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, arranged a $130,000 payment to the porn star in return for silence about a 2006 affair she claimed to have had with Mr. Trump. (Both the president and Mr. Cohen have denied the affair; Mr. Trump has said he did not know of the payment to Ms. Daniels until this February.)

Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal—perhaps because the president seems impervious to that—some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law. Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission told “60 Minutes” the payment was “a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he’s allowed to give.” The FBI raided Mr. Cohen’s office, home and hotel room Monday. They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws.

But let’s remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.

Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption. For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on “personal use” of campaign funds. Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate—the essence of a bribe.

FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, even if it might help win election. At the same time, obligations that would not exist “but for” the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.

If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds. How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal, which gave rise to modern campaign-finance law.

++++++++++++++++++

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

By Frieda Powers 

August 22, 2018 

BizPac Review

No sooner had Michael Cohen pleaded guilty than a Democrat lawmaker called for a new investigation to determine if President Donald Trump committed a crime.

Rep. Joaquin Castro accused Trump of being an “unindicted co-conspirator” and called on Congress to launch a probe into possible criminal action by the president.

VIDEO: Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump – MSNBC

“And now the question is what will the US Congress do about that,” Castro, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said. “I believe that the judiciary committee in both the House and the Senate should open an investigation tomorrow morning.”

But conservative author and radio-TV host Mark Levin provided a hard lesson in how the law actually works, noting how what the president is accused of doing is not even illegal.

“I want to help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors and of course the professors and I want to help them understand what the law is,” Levin told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday.

VIDEO: Mark Levin slams Michael Cohen's plea deal

[Posted by Fox News

Published on Aug 21, 2018

'Life, Liberty & Levin' host Mark Levin says Lanny Davis had Michael Cohen plead guilty to two counts of criminality that don't exist on 'Hannity'.

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 15 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.]

The general counsel for the Clinton mob family Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist,” he added. “It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case. Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent.”

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He is not the judge. He is not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything,” Levin argued, using an example to drive home his point.

“Say a candidate had said we owe vendors a whole lot of money. We have had disputes with them. But I want you to go ahead and pay them. I’m a candidate, I don’t want the negative publicity. So he says to the private lawyer, you pay them, I’ll reimburse you, get it done,” Levin explained. “Is that illegal? It’s perfectly legal. Yet according to the prosecution of the Southern District of New York, it’s paid at the direction of the candidate to influence the election. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, how stupid is your point?”

The former head of the Federal Election Commission, appearing on Levin’s show, also clarified how Cohen’s alleged “hush” payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election is not an in kind contribution to the Trump campaign or a violation of campaign finance law.

VIDEO of Audio: Levin Lays Out a Case That There is no Campaign Violation [SEE ABOVE in The Gateway Pundit post]

“When the FEC wrote the regulation that says what constitutes campaign expenditures and what constitutes personal use, it rejected specifically the idea that a campaign expenditure was anything related to a campaign, and instead says it has to be something that exists only because of the campaign and solely for that reason,” Professor Bradley Smith told Levin Tuesday.

The expenditures alleged by Cohen, Smith explained, are not violations of campaign finance law even though they “might incidentally benefit your campaign,”

“The argument seems to be, and it hasn’t changed,” Levin summed up, “is that, if I spend money to make myself look better, or to take away negative issues in my private life, my business life, my employment life and use my own money, then somehow that is a campaign contribution…which it is not.”

____________________

Leftist Shark-fest over Manafort-Cohen Guilt Verdicts-Pleas

John R. Houk

© August 22, 2018

___________________

MUST SEE: Former Head of Federal Elections Says Cohen Payment IS NOT an In Kind Campaign Contribution (AUDIO)

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

_________________

Fmr head of the FEC blows up media narrative that Trump broke the law, by referring to the actual law

Copyright © 2018. All Rights Reserved. BizPac Review