Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Media’

Fact Check: No, Gordon Sondland Did Not Prove Ukraine ‘Quid pro Quo’


Reported by Joel B. Pollak | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/05/fact-check-no-gordon-sondland-did-not-prove-ukraine-quid-pro-quo/

Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, adresses the media during a press conference at the US Embassy to Romania in Bucharest September 5, 2019. (Photo by Daniel MIHAILESCU / AFP) (Photo credit should read DANIEL MIHAILESCU/AFP/Getty Images)

CLAIM: Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland confirmed, contrary to earlier testimony, that there had been a “quid pro quo” between President Donald Trump and the Ukrainian government: military aid for “dirt.”

VERDICT: FALSE. Sondland said that he “presumed” there was a “quid pro quo.” But he did not have any first-hand knowledge of one, and other witnesses have testified that there was no such “quid pro quo” at all.

The House Intelligence Committee began releasing transcripts this week of its behind-closed-doors interviews with witnesses in the “impeachment inquiry.” On Tuesday, it released the transcripts of the appearances of Sondland and former Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker.

Volker testified that there had never been a “quid pro quo” — that he had never heard one discussed, and that Ukrainian officials seemed unaware of any such arrangement at all.

But Sondland, who had also testified earlier that there was no “quid pro quo,” had to amend that testimony after he was apparently contradicted by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who testified last month that he believed there was a “quid pro quo,” under which the Trump administration was withholding key military aid to Ukraine unless it investigated alleged corruption related to former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In a supplemental declaration filed with the committee, Sondland said that “by the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid,” he “presumed that the [Ukraine] aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement” and the investigation of the Bidens. That led him to tell the Ukrainian government that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur” until it complied.

But there are two big logical leaps in Sondland’s statement.

The first is that he only “presumed” there was a “quid pro quo” — that is, he did not have direct knowledge of one.

The second is that he told the Ukrainians that a “quid pro quo” was “likely” — that is, he did not know with certainty.

In their rush to accuse the Trump administration of wrongdoing, Democrats and the media have overlooked one other key fact: the crucial August 2019 Politico article.

The article, “Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia,” dated August 28, was the first that the Ukrainians ever knew about any withholding of aid — five weeks after the phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky which supposedly prompted the so-called “whistleblower” to approach Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee. Sondland refers specifically to September.

Therefore what changed his — and others’ — impression was not anything the administration (or its representatives) did or said. Rather, it was the media.

Since Sondland consumes the same media that everyone else does — indeed, it is part of a diplomat’s job to know what is being said — he drew his own conclusions. But when he asked President Trump directly, Trump told him there was no “quid pro quo”: he just wanted Zelensky to do “the right thing.”

All of this presumes there is something wrong with a “quid pro quo.” But even that seems untrue. In fact, “quid pro quo” arrangements are normal in diplomacy. A House bill passed recently by Democrats would establish a “quid pro quo” that bars Russia from access even to private U.S. funds until it can be shown not to have interfered in U.S. elections. Trump, Democrats say, sought his personal or political interest; it also happened to be a national interest.

For years, Democrats defended the investigations of President Barack Obama’s administration into then-candidate Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by arguing that the country had to know if a major candidate was corrupt or compromised by a foreign power.

That investigation may have been conducted in an unlawful manner — and a grand jury is now on the case — but the logic they used then is even more appropriate to Ukraine and the Bidens.

Hunter Biden’s role as a go-between for Burisma — a Ukrainian gas company suspected of corruption — and his father’s administration has never been fully investigated. The so-called “whistleblower” worked for Biden at the time; that conflict of interest, too, has never been explored.

If Trump had demanded a “quid pro quo,” he would have been doing his job. As it is, there is no evidence of a “quid pro quo” — certainly not from Gordon Sondland.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Nolte: ABC Fails to Fact-Check Hunter Biden’s Claim of ‘Not One Cent’ from Chinese Govt. Deal


Written by John Nolte | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/15/nolte-abc-fails-to-fact-check-hunter-bidens-claim-of-not-one-cent-from-chinese-govt-deal/

Hunter-Biden-interview-5577c-abc-ps-191014_hpMain | ABC News

ABC News allowed Hunter Biden to get away with the claim he did not make “one cent” from his company’s mega-deal with a Chinese bank that is a subsidiary of the Chinese government — when its own past reporting has said just the opposite.

During the sit-down interview, ABC’s Amy Robach set up the segment about Hunter’s China deal with the background on President Trump’s desire to look into Hunter’s shady $1.5 billion — with a “B” — deal with the Chinese bank (starts at around 5:03)::

ROBACH: Also on Trump’s list of accusations against Hunter Biden: that Hunter flew on Air Force Two with his father during an official government trip to China in 2013, leveraging that connection for financial gain in an investment deal with Chinese businessman Jonathan Li.

What Robach’s question omitted is that the deal was not just with an individual businessman but with the Bank of China — a subsidiary of the Chinese government itself.

She then asks Hunter directly:

ROBACH: The president has repeatedly said you have received $1.5 billion, despite no experience and for no apparent reason. Obviously fact checkers have said that that is not true.

HUNTER: This literally has no basis in fact in any way.

ROBACH: Have you received any money from that business dealing?

HUNTER: No.

ROBACH: At all?

HUNTER: Not one cent.

ROBACH: Definitely not 1.5 billion.

HUNTER: It’s crazy. They feel as though they have the license to go out and say whatever they want.

Hunter is then allowed to trash Trump and his family as liars while Robach, who has just lauded fact checkers and their fact checking,  says nothing about the fact that — and this is important — according to her own network’s reporting,  and Hunter’s own attorney, Hunter has a ten percent stake in BHR, the company that made that mammoth $1.5 billion China deal.

Just a few months ago, ABC aired an in-depth report on Hunter’s shady business dealings that included this nugget (starts at about the 2:00 minute mark):

This video shows Chinese diplomats greeting Vice President Biden as he arrives in Beijing in December of 2013. Right by his side? His son Hunter. Less than two weeks later, Hunter’s firm had new business, creating an investment fund in China, involving the government controlled Bank of China, with reports they hopes to raise $1.5 billion. Hunter still plays a role in the fund. His lawyer says his stake is worth about half a million dollars.

Where was Robach’s followup question? Where was her oh-so-vital fact checking? Why did she let him get away with saying “not one cent” when her own network reported just a few months ago that he had equity in the firm that made a massive $1.5 billion deal?

Obviously, Hunter is playing a semantic game with that “not one cent” comment. Hunter’s attorney appears to do the same in a statement he released just two days ago, on October 13, 2019:

Hunter neither played a role in the formation or licensure of the company, nor owned any equity in it while his father was Vice President. He served only as a member of its board of directors, which he joined based on his interest in seeking ways to bring Chinese capital to international markets. It was an unpaid position.

To date, Hunter has not received any compensation for being on BHR’s board of directors. He has not received any return on his investment; there have been no distributions to BHR shareholders since Hunter obtained his equity interest.

So Hunter hasn’t “received” “one cent” because there has been no payout to investors. There was no direct commission for that deal, which dum-dums would obviously suspect like he’s a bottom-run sales rep. But here’s the rub, according to no less than FactCheck.org: Hunter might not have been paid “one cent” yet, but he is still could be looking at an eventual payoff that hits the $20 million mark:

[Hunter’s lawyer George] Mesires told the New York Times that while Hunter Biden now has a 10% stake in BHR, which he acquired through a company he created named Skaneateles LLC, “there have been no distributions to the shareholders since Hunter has been an equity owner.”

But that doesn’t mean Biden won’t eventually make millions from the deal. Steven Kaplan, who conducts research on issues in private equity, venture capital, entrepreneurial finance, corporate governance and corporate finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, told us that a private equity fund with $2 billion under management will typically generate fees over its life of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“It is difficult to imagine, if not incomprehensible, that a 10% stake in those economics is worth only $420K,” Kaplan told us via email. “The distinction they appear to be making is they capitalized the management company with $4.2 M even if the fund manages $2 B.  The value of that management company is likely far in excess of $4.2 M if they are managing $2 B.”

Kaplan pointed to two large publicly traded private equity firms for reference, both of which have a market value of about 10% of the assets under their management. Using that as a rough guide, that would put the value of Hunter Biden’s share closer to $20 million, he said.

Basically, it looks as though Hunter claiming not have made one cent off the China deal is like a CEO claiming he was not paid one cent to run a company because his compensation came from stocks or bars of gold or pearls or the gift of a home. But the fact is this: any deal that increases the value of the company that Hunter Biden has a stake in — and a $1.5 billion deal with a bank owned by one of the world’s biggest economies does just that — is a deal where Hunter Biden has a financial interest.

Maybe ABC will reveal Hunter’s semantic dishonesty when the rest of the interview airs later tonight. Maybe Robach will ask him what he has “earned” or “gained” as a result of the deal, rather than “received.” If not, it is a gross dereliction of duty on the network’s part. And all of this comes just one day after ABC was caught presenting 2014 video from a Kentucky gun range as video of  Turkish military operation against the Kurds.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions


Written by John Nolte | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are-0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/

EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND – SEPTEMBER 20: Protesters march and hold placards as they attend the Global Climate Strike on September 20, 2019 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Millions of people are taking to the streets around the world to take part in protests inspired by the teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. Students are … Jeff J Mitchell/Getty 

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.

In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41times, would you hang in there for number 42?

Of course not. You’d fire him after failed prediction two or three.

And if that’s not crazy enough, the latest ploy is to trot out a 16-year-old girl to spread prediction number 42, because it is so much more credible that way.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh.

Anyway, I want you to have the data, so go ahead and print this out in advance of Thanksgiving dinner with your obnoxious Millennial nephew.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT RIGHT

NONE.

ZIP.

ZERO.

NADA.

BLANK

DONUT HOLE

NIL.

NOTHING.

VOID.

ZILCH.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

      1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
      2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
      3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
      4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
      5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
      6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
      7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
      8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
      9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
      10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
      11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
      12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
      13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
      14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
      15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
      16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
      17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
      18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
      19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
      20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
      21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
      22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
      23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
      24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
      25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
      26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
      27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
      28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
      29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
      30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
      31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
      32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
      33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
      34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
      35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
      36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
      37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
      38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
      39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
      40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
      41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Don’t litter, be kind to animals, recycling’s for suckers (it’s all going to end up in the ground eventually), so stop feeling guilty… Go out there and embrace all the bounty that comes with being a 21st century American — you know, like Obama, who says he believes in Global Warming with his mouth but proves he doesn’t with the $15 million he just spent on oceanfront that we’re told is doomed to flooding.

This piece has been updated to correct a duplicate posting and add another hoax prediction.  

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

On-Scene MSNBC Reporter Tells The Truth About The Migrant Caravan On Air — Will He Be Fired?


Written by Wes Walker on November 27, 2018

What do reporters look like before they become jaded and conformist? Like this guy, reporting the facts on the ground. But could honesty like this endanger his job? Media bias isn’t about what you TELL people, it’s also about the details you carefully ignore. A good example of that is how the media outrage over children being ‘snatched from mother’s arms’ at the border began in response to a single photo pushed by an Obama insider.

It was that photo of children sleeping in a glorified kennel. One problem — it was taken while Obama was in office. And yet, somehow, Trump got to be the lightning rod for the angry media outrage, and the politicians on the Left… how convenient for them.

Here we have a reporter walking among the migrants in the Caravan making political waves in Tijuana which unexpectedly broke out into what Rush calls a ‘random act of journalism’.

One part of it is just fine, from the perspective of that well-worn ‘sweet immigrants hoping for a better life’ narrative. He shows the audience that yes, indeed, there are women and children present. But he keeps on talking.

That is exactly the point that has been made by the Right, both with respect to this ‘caravan’ and also the swarm of humanity flooding into Europe for the last few years. For example: Hundreds Of ‘Sweet Refugees’ Storm Spain’s Border – Attack Cops With Acid

We’re not seeing impoverished women, children and the aged fleeing some war-torn hellhole. We’re seeing men making a play to climb the social ladder and get a better income. We can’t blame them for wanting a shot at the American Dream but that does NOT meet any criterion of seeking ‘asylum’.

Will this honest reporter get sat down and have the business side of journalism explained to him? Will he out on his ear? Or will his next assignment be somewhere in the Antarctic reporting on the condition of polar ice sheets?

New York Times Published Trump Assassination Fantasy Before Mail Bomb Scare


Reported by Justin Caruso | October 25, 2018

(INSET: Author Zoe Sharp) The New York Times building on 8th Avenue is seen August 21, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Daniel SLIM / AFP) (Photo credit should read DANIEL SLIM/AFP/Getty Images)/DANIEL SLIM/AFP/Getty; Twitter/@authorzoesharp; New York Times

The New York Times published a fictional story Tuesday that fantasized about President Trump’s assassination at the hands of the Secret Service and a Russian operative — one day before the nation was gripped by news of apparent mail bombs sent to prominent Democratic figures.

In an article published in the New York Times‘ Book Review, five writers conjured up fantasy scenarios about President Trump’s future with the Russia investigation.

One writer, Zoe Sharp (pictured), took liberal fantasizing to the next level and wrote a story that ends with President Trump being assassinated by a Russian agent. The Times’ editors illustrate the piece, titled “How It Ends,” with a Russian flag sticking out of a pistol barrel.

In the story, the Russian attempts to shoot the president, but his gun misfires. A Secret Service agent then offers his own pistol to the Russian:

The Russian waited until they were a few steps past before he drew the gun. He sighted on the center of the president’s back, and squeezed the trigger.

The Makarov misfired.

The Secret Service agent at the president’s shoulder heard the click, spun into a crouch. He registered the scene instantly, drawing his own weapon with razor-edge reflexes.

The Russian tasted failure. He closed his eyes and waited to pay the cost.

It did not come.

He opened his eyes. The Secret Service agent stood before him, presenting his Glock, butt first.

“Here,” the agent said politely. “Use mine. …” [emphasis added]

This assassination fantasy was published just one day before the media exploded with criticism for President Trump’s rhetoric after a series of apparent mail bombs sent to many Democrat political figures Wednesday, including one sent to CNN’s New York office.

Media and entertainment figures fantasizing about the assassination of President Trump has become disturbingly common.

Last year, actor Johnny Depp joked, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” He later apologized. Rapper Rick Ross released a song in 2016 with the lyric, “Assassinate Trump like I’m Zimmerman.”

A Julius Caesar play in Central Park featured the assassination of a faux Donald Trump-figure. And pop star Madonna said at the Women’s March that she had fantasized about “blowing up” the White House.

“Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I’m outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House, but I know that this won’t change anything,” she said.

And the left’s violent fantasies are not limited to Trump–anyone they disagree with can be targeted.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who was at the GOP baseball practice when it was targeted by left-wing mass shooter James Hodgkinson, said that Hodgkinson was screaming, “This is for health care!”

“He also had a list of conservative legislators–Republicans–in his pocket, that he was going to kill,” Paul also said.

Corporate media’s role in this downward slide cannot be ignored, either.

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace has repeatedly fantasized about violence toward people she disagrees with, previously talking on air about Sarah Sanders getting choked and Trump getting punched in the face.

Further, CNN has excused and whitewashed the violence of Antifa, time and time and time again.

Finally, as Breitbart News has meticulously chronicled, there are several hundred incidents of Trump supporting Americans being targeted for violence, harassment, and intimidation by the left.

Steve Schmidt: Trump Stoked ‘Cold Civil War,’ His Rhetoric Makes Violence ‘Inevitable’


Reported by Joshua Caplan | October 25, 2018

BEVERLY HILLS, CA - OCTOBER 09: (L-R) Political Analyst at NBC Steve Schmidt and Elise Jordan speak onstage at Day 1 of the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit 2018 at The Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts on October 9, 2018 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty …
Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images
In the wake of a series of bomb scares targeting prominent Democrat leaders, Steve Schmidt, a former campaign strategist for the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), called President Donald Trump the “greatest demagogue” in U.S. history — who has stoked a “cold civil war.”

“Trump has stoked a cold civil war in this Country. His rallies brim with menace and he has labeled journalists as enemies of the people,” Schmidt began in a series of tweets Wednesday. “That someone would seek to kill their political enemies is not aberrational but rather the inevitable consequence of Trumps [sic] incitement.”

The political strategist turned MSNBC contributor claimed, without evidence, that the intended recipients of the apparent crude mail bombs were linked to President Trump’s spirited rebuke of his Democrat rivals. “The targets are political not coincidental. Trump, the greatest demagogue in American history has celebrated violence over and over again,” Schmidt wrote. “It looks like someone finally took Trump both literally and seriously. The WH will feign outrage when this obvious point is made.”

Schmidt then went on to say members of media should be able to do their jobs without fear of retribution and warned against the damaging effects that “stoking of hatred and sundering” can have an American life.

“No journalist or commentator should be intimidated from making this point,” he continued. “The stoking of hatred and sundering of the American people was always going to lead to terrible consequences. Chief amongst them would be the initiation of partisan or sectarian violence within our country.”


Schmidt’s remarks came amid reports that the U.S. Secret Service had intercepted various explosive devices sent to former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with the New York Offices of CNN, which was evacuated after discovering a suspicious package addressed to the political strategist’s MSNBC colleague, former CIA chief John Brennan.

On Monday, progressive billionaire George Soros had an explosive device hand-delivered to his Westchester County compound. In a scathing New York Times opinion-editorial published Wednesday, the hedge fund manager’s son, Alex Soros, blamed the scares on President Trump’s “demonization” of his opponents.

The White House swiftly condemned the attempted attacks and called for those behind “despicable” acts to be brought to justice. “We condemn the attempted violent attacks recently made against President Obama, President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, and other public figures,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “These terrorizing acts are despicable, and anyone responsible will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.”

President Donald Trump denounced the targeting’s and called on Americans to “come together.”

“Acts or threats of political violence have no place in the United States,” the president said. “This egregious conduct is abhorrent.”

“We are extremely angry, upset, unhappy about what we witnessed this morning and we will get to the bottom of it,”he added.

CNN Chyron: Mail Bomb Recipients Are ‘Trump’s Targets’


Reported by Justin Caruso |

A CNN chyron aired Thursday said Democrats who received mail bombs this week are “Trump’s targets” — hours after an anchor insisted “no one’s blaming the president.”

“Manhunt For Serial Bomber Going After Trump’s Targets” read the CNN chyron at about 1:13 PM. This came after another chyron that also referred to those targeted as “Trump Targets.”

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer ended the segment by saying, “The one common thread between all of these bombs–all of those who are being targeted are President Trump’s frequent punching bags.”

This segment came mere hours after CNN’s John King opened up a panel discussion by stating: “No one’s blaming the president. Is anyone blaming the president?”

And just one hour before this segment, the network’s chyron suggested that Trump bears “responsibility” for “inciting” the perpetrator to send these packages — but alleges the president is not owning up to it.

Although CNN personalities have repeatedly said that they are not blaming Trump or his supporters for the mail bombs, they have emphasized several times that those targeted by the bombs were frequently criticized by Trump and by right-wing media.

Brian Stelter said Wednesday that the targets of the bombs “have all been criticized mercilessly by right-wing outlets.”

CNN analyst Josh Campbell also insisted Wednesday that Trump’s rhetoric may still be to blame for the mail bombs, even if the perpetrator is mentally ill.

“If the package bomber turns out to be someone with mental health issues, that doesn’t mean Pres. Trump is off the hook. If it turns out the bomber was motivated to kill perceived enemies based on recent heated political attacks by officials, those spewing hate share the blame,” he said.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: