Who's on First?

JFC Chris!  Are you daft? WALLACE: You — you just, sir, that he’s being — SEKULOW: No, he’s not being investigated! WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated. SEKULOW: No, Chris, I said that the — any — let me be crystal clear so you — you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any investigation of the president of the United States, period. WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he’s being investigated. On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace had a heated exchange with Jay Sekulow, who is member of President Donald Trump’s legal team. Partial transcript as follows: WALLACE: I want to ask you a direct question, does the president think that Rod Rosenstein has done anything wrong? SEKULOW: The president has never said anything about Rod Rosenstein doing anything wrong. Here’s what — what is the legal situation here. There is a constitutional issue when you have this scenario. The president made a determination based on consult of advice. He decided ultimately. He’s the commander in chief. He gets to make that decision that James Comey had a go. That was coming, by the way, from groups right, left, and center over the last year. You — you and I know that. So there had been concern about James Comey. It was put forward in a memorandum — that’s what the president’s referencing — from the deputy attorney general and the attorney general requesting the removal of James Comey as the FBI director. And, ultimately, that’s the president’s determination. So here’s the constitutional threshold question, Chris. The president takes action based on numerous events, including recommendations from his attorney general and the deputy attorney general’s office. He takes the action that they also, by the way, recommended. And now he’s being investigated by the Department of Justice because the special counsel under the special counsel relations reports still to the Department of Justice. Not an independent counsel. So he’s being investigated for taking the action that the attorney general and deputy attorney general recommended him to take by the agency who recommended the termination. So that’s the constitutional threshold question here. That’s why, as I said, no investigation — WALLACE: Well, I — what — what — what’s the question (INAUDIBLE). I mean you — you stated — you stated some facts. First of all, you’ve now said that he is getting investigated after saying that you didn’t. SEKULOW: No. WALLACE: You — you just, sir, that he’s being — SEKULOW: No, he’s not being investigated! WALLACE: You just said that he’s being investigated. SEKULOW: No, Chris, I said that the — any — let me be crystal clear so you — you completely understand. We have not received nor are we aware of any investigation of the president of the United States, period. WALLACE: Sir, you just said two times that he’s being investigated. SEKULOW: No. The context of the tweet, I just gave you the legal theory, Chris, of how the Constitution works. If, in fact, it was correct that the president was being investigated, he would be investigating for taking action that an agency told him to take. So that is protected under the Constitution as his article one power. That’s all I said. So I appreciate you trying to rephrase it, but I’m just being really direct with you, Chris. This is — let me be — WALLACE: No, I — I — sir, I didn’t rephrase it. The tape will speak — Jay, the tape will speak for itself. You said he is being investigated. And it’s not that big — SEKULOW: Chris, he is — just — no, Chris — that’s (INAUDIBLE) unfair, Chris. WALLACE: Wait a minute — wait a minute. Jay, and it’s not — Jay, it’s not just being investigated for firing Comey. There’s also the question of what he said to Comey when Comey was still the FBI director. So there’s more than just the fact that he fired Comey. SEKULOW: He — Chirrs, let me be clear, you asked me a question about what the president’s tweet was regarding the deputy attorney general of the United States. That’s what you asked me. And I responded to what that legal theory would be. So I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth when I’ve been crystal clear that the president is not and has not been under investigation. I don’t think I can be any clearer than that. WALLACE: Well, you don’t know that he’s not under investigation again, sir. I mean you might — SEKULOW: You know, I can’t read the mind — you’re right, Chris, I can’t read the minds of the special prosecutor. WALLACE: Well, then, good, OK, so we’re in agreement, you don’t know whether he’s under — you don’t know whether he’s under investigation. SEKULOW: But I have not been notified. No one has been notified that he is. WALLACE: You don’t know whether he’s under investigation or not. SEKULOW: Chris, I — WALLACE: The question I’m asking you is, does he think that Rod Rosenstein — it’s a very simple question — does he think that Rod Rosenstein did anything wrong? SEKULOW: The president has not expressed any opinion about Rod Rosenstein. WALLACE: Does he think that Robert Mueller has done anything wrong? SEKULOW: First of all, he has not said anything about Robert Mueller. And, Chris, let me say something here. You’re asking me if I had a conversation, which I have not had, about Robert Mueller with the president of the United States on — or anyone else for that matter. I can’t discuss that and would that with you. Unlike James Comey, who leaks information to the press, I actually respect the attorney-client privilege. Apparently, he did not. WALLACE: Does the President believe — well, you’re speaking for his legal team, so you’re out here to represent him and tell us what the president’s belief is, is that correct? SEKULOW: No, I’m out here to tell you what the facts are and the legal issues are. I’m not to tell you what the beliefs are. I’m not the client’s conscience; I’m his lawyer. WALLACE: I understand that and the — and the client — have you spoken the — have you spoken to the president at all? SEKULOW: Yes, but I’m not going to discuss those conversations with you. Those are privileged under the attorney-client privilege. WALLACE: Well, I assume that if he asked you to say something, for instance, Marc Kasowitz said all kinds of things about — after Comey’s testimony. I assumed he was speaking for the president SEKULOW: Marc Kasowitz made a general statement to the press after the testimony of James Comey. That’s what that was about. This — you’re asking me now questions about what people are thinking in their minds, which I don’t read minds, and you’re asking me also what I may or may not have had a conversation with the president about and you understand this. I respect the attorney-client privilege, unlike James Comey. WALLACE: Does — SEKULOW: I want to be real clear on that too. I’m not going to give you conversations I’ve had with — have or have not had with the president of the United States. So when I’ve had conversations with the president of the United States — WALLACE: Well, I — your — SEKULOW: As his lawyer, it’s privileged, period. WALLACE: Does the president think that Rosenstein, because you talked about this constitutional theory that he took action, that’s on the advice — SEKULOW: Yes. WALLACE: Although he says he didn’t take it on the advice of Rosenstein, does he think that Rosenstein should recuse himself, and is healing the groundwork to fire Rosenstein and Mueller? SEKULOW: I’ve had no conversations, and I’ve heard nothing without that at all. Nothing. I think this — Chris, this points out — let me tell you one thing quickly about the constitutional theory, as you called it. It’s actually called the Constitution. You know, the president has certain (INAUDIBLE) authority under the Constitution. It’s — WALLACE: Well, you called it the constitutional theory, sir. SEKULOW: Yes, it is a constitutional theory based on the Constitution. WALLACE: I understand that. SEKULOW: Not so-called. It’s the constitutional theory. It’s part of the Constitution. The president has inherent authority. Here’s what you’re trying to — here’s what you’re trying to do, Chris, and I appreciate that you’re — you’re trying to push back. WALLACE: Well, now you’re reading minds again. Now you’re reading minds again. SEKULOW: No, Chris, I deal with fact and law. You were asking me to read people’s minds. That I don’t do. WALLACE: Well, don’t tell me what I’m trying to — well, don’t tell me what I’m trying to do because you don’t know what I’m trying to do. What I’m trying to get is a straight answer out of you. Let me ask you this — SEKULOW: Yes, well — sure. WALLACE: As a matter of law, does the President think that he can be indicted under the Constitution? SEKULOW: The president — I haven’t had that conversation with the president, but the president can’t be indicted under the Constitution of the activity alleged in something like this. Of course not. WALLACE: Why is that? SEKULOW: Because there’s not an investigation. And there’s — there’s no investigation against the president. WALLACE: Well, you don’t know whether there’s an investigation. Oh, boy, this is weird. You — you don’t know that there’s — whether there’s an investigation. You just told us that. SEKULOW: Chris, you’re asking me to speculate — so then what you’re asking me to do is to speculate on — WALLACE: And it would matter. I’m asking you as a matter of law, not whether there’s an investigation. Does the president think he can be indicted as president? SEKULOW: For — for — WALLACE: That’s a constitutional issue, isn’t it? SEKULOW: For obstruction of justice? No, the Constitution’s — WALLACE: No, for any of it. SEKULOW: Now, Chris, you know, let’s — let’s be realistic here. You know what the — the answer is. Can the president be indicted for obstruction? You know what the position has been at the Department of Justice since the 1970s and again stated in 2000. That’s not what President — that’s now how you engage a president. There’s a political process if somebody did something wrong. You’re talking about — you’re conflating a constitutional process, criminal law, with an issue of political consequence. So I am his lawyer. I’m not his political advisor. WALLACE: Senator Dianne Feinstein, a top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded to the president’s tweet this week with this statement. “The message the president is sending through his tweets is that he believes the rule of law doesn’t apply to him and that anyone who thinks otherwise will be fired.” Is she wrong, sir? SEKULOW: Yes, she’s wrong. First of all, Dianne Feinstein also called for an investigation of James Comey and Loretta Lynch for that whole episode regarding her engagement and calling it a, quote, “matter,” not an “investigation.” But with regard to this particular issue, I mean the tweet — there’s nothing illegal or inappropriate about the tweet. If the tweet came on the heels of a Washington Post story that had five anonymous sources and didn’t even identify the agency from which those sources came from, and that’s what he tweet in response to. It’s that simple, period. WALLACE: Final question, the president just — just added John Dowd, a high-powered Washington lawyer, to his legal team. Should we expect him to hire other criminal lawyers? And, in a sense, is he preparing for a potential legal battle here? SEKULOW: Look, I mean John Dowd is — is a legal legend, you know that, in — in — in the — in Washington, D.C., and the president is doing the appropriate thing by hiring lawyers necessary, if there was to be an investigation, if there were to be an investigation, you have the lawyers in place. We’ve got a great legal team led by Marc Kasowitz. We’ve got John Dowd on the team. This is a solid team. Contrary to some of the press reports, a deep team, if necessary. WALLACE: Do you think — I — I — I misspoke. I’m going to ask one more question. Because I’m not allowed to ask you what the president thinks, do you think that he should stop — SEKULOW: Of course. WALLACE: Do you think he should stop tweeting about this case? SEKULOW: Look, I — here’s the thing on that. You know, people have been asking me that. Look, the president has changed the way in which engagement goes in — I mean you’ve got great ratings, no doubt about it, Chris. But let’s face it, the president speaks to 107 million people through his social media platforms. He revolutionized the election process by utilizing media in a different way. So I — I think, look, the president knows the effectiveness of social media. He’s been very effective at it. Again, I’m his lawyer, I deal with the issues. Nothing that he’s tweeted is causing me any issues whatsoever at this point. Nothing. WALLACE: Jay, thank you. Thanks for coming in. SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris. WALLACE: It’s always — it’s always interesting to talk to you. Please, come back, and we’ll — SEKULOW: Thanks, Chris. WALLACE: We’ll continue it and maybe this time we’ll get on this — you know what, be here in studio and we can stay on the same wavelength. SEKULOW: There we go. WALLACE: All right, sir — SEKULOW: Happy Father’s Day. WALLACE: Happy Father’s Day to you too, sir. via Damian Housman This is the damnedest thing I've heard a media-head say since .. since Friday?  The only way I can explain it is Chris Wallace has undergone some mind altering procedure that  hard-wired a dialog into his head.  What else could it be?  Whatever it is, Trump ought get the Surgeon General to declare the entire Washing press corps (or as Obama says "corpse) insane, and a threat to national well being. [Video]

Media Thuggery

Thug Culture

Dr. Drew loses show after discussing Hillary’s health Dr. Drew Pinsky is so afraid of Hillary Clinton and her supporters, he won’t blame them for the cancellation of his show on HLN, the sister channel of CNN. “No, no, no. I just want them to go away!” he told one friend. “Dr. Drew” was canceled eight days after Pinsky discussed Clinton’s health on a radio show, saying he was “gravely concerned not just about her health, but her health care.” “CNN is so supportive of Clinton, network honchos acted like the Mafia when confronting Drew,” a source told me. “First, they demanded he retract his comments, but he wouldn’t.” What followed was a series of nasty phone calls and e-mails. “It was downright scary and creepy,” a source close to Pinsky said. But a spokeswoman for Pinsky said the show’s cancellation had been decided weeks before Pinsky’s comments, as part of a HLN revamp that includes the end of Nancy Grace’s show. RIGHT Should we be afraid Lucy?

Daily Mail Retracts

Daily Mail Retracts Article About Melania Trump After She Files $150 Million Defamation Suit Hey There!

Trump will trump Bezos

I had hopes that Amazon owner Jeff Bezos's purchase of the WaPost would lead to something a little less left-wing doctrinaire. I don't know why I did, but I did.  It took  about a month to watch the chips fall, and they were not falling the right way.  Anyway, I just Googled the Redskin Insider to see the shakeout from last night's  20-13 victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  This is what I saw on the page. I wait eagerly to read about a successful "interception" of an Amazon delivery drone. THIS JUST IN Shameless WashPost Buries Its Own Poll Showing Record Low in Popularity for Hillary

New York Times reveals cops addy

NYT stands by its call to reveal Ferguson cop's neighborhood MSNBC ALL-STARS and ilk NYT stands by its call to reveal Ferguson cop's neighborhood

“ The New York Times in its original report published an unedited image of Wilson’s marriage license. That image has since been removed and the following message has been added to the report: "An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed." Univision's Jorge Ramos, a Mexican journalist based in Miami, yesterday opined that the media ought "Stop pretending we're (politically) neutral."  Well, Ramos presumably has a Green Card, but still has a leftist wetback entitlement mentality similar to Obama's.  The New York Times seems to have taken a giant leap, even for them,  by publishing the name of the street where officer Darren Wilson and his wife own a home. That pretty much completes the Time's long slide from furtive supporter of Stalin's 1930 purges, to full out-in-the-open  MSNBC raving lunatic status.  As I see it. Washington Examiner full report ”

Jindal's evolution

Whacking Democrat Media Monkeys “ Bobby Jindal Schools a Biased Reporter on Evolution I don't know that he so much schools the smarmy pissant,  as adeptly stop him from framing  the question.  Which makes me ask myself this question.  "What other candidate for president has a better record than Jindal's, as governor of LA., or have by their actions, and political philosophies, been a better model for being the next best president since Ronald Reagan?  Aside from Sarah Palin, who evidently is a non starter? ”

Sharyl Attkisson

Democrat Media Monkeys ... they’ll be seen as a “right-wing nut.”  Emmy-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson appeared on the June 19 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” program and explained the media isn’t digging into allegations the White House used the power of the IRS to target tea-party groups because “propaganda interests” have intimidated reporters so severely, they’re afraid if they cover the administration’s scandals, they’ll be seen as a “right-wing nut.” Attkisson has twice won Emmys for her investigative journalism and has been nominated for several more, most recently for her reporting on the Fast & Furious scandal. In March 2014, however, Attkisson resigned from CBS News, in part because of her frustration with the network’s liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting. “Whether it’s Fast and Furious, whether it is spying on a journalist, whether it’s IRS targeting, Benghazi, the list goes on and on and on,” Dobbs posited to Attkisson. “Yet the national liberal media, as I often style it, simply will not rise up to the level of a watchdog for the state. Instead they are behaving much more like lap dogs. It is, to me, mind boggling.” Attkisson suggested some reporters may simply not be that interested in these scandal stories, but she also suggested there may be more nefarious forces at work. “I think to some degree they have been played by propaganda interests who suggest that if these stories are covered, they are simply phony scandals and Republican generated. Which they’re not, in my opinion,” she said. “From a neutral viewpoint there are many important questions to be asked and implications here. But the propaganda campaign says that if you’re interested in the story you’re a conservative and a right-wing nut. “Media should not be swayed by that,” she concluded, “but I think to some degree they are.” Attkisson made similar comments on radio host Laura Ingraham’s program the same day – not about the IRS scandal, but about the recent flood of underage illegal immigrants streaming across the U.S. border. Attkisson explained how “only one side” of certain stories are being reported, the side sympathetic to illegal immigrants. “It’s perceived as you’re negative, or you’re mean, or you’re racist perhaps if you go after these other stories,” she said, “and I simply don’t think that’s the case, but I feel like there is that kind of pressure sometimes.” Read more  ABC's John Stossel and Brit Hume, and CBS's Bernard Goldberg are examples of high profile, highly regarded newsmen who were fired (Goldberg) or left for more friendly environs, and were/are highly critical of the Liberal network bias.  Has it had any effect?  I mean, have GE (NBC), Disney (ABC) or Time Warner (CNN) execs ever sent a memo suggesting that news ought be neutral biased?  Have Disney ever been embarrased by the trainwreck that is MSNBC?  Not to my knowledge. Which is why we have to (sigh) nuke them all.

When Tina Brown speaks ...

Democrat Media Monkeys Musings of the Ugsome Tina Brown “Monica’s new musings just remind us of how the death of privacy started. The press was at the height of its power when the Monica story began and Drudge was its underbelly. The ascendant media that looked down on him has been pretty much destroyed. No one would have believed that that only 13 years later the Graham family would no longer own The Washington Post, that the two mighty news magazines would become a shadow and a corpse, and that the juggernaut CNN would be chasing the spoils won by cable TV’s counterpart to the Drudge Report, the Fox News Network. That too, is a story of humiliation. And not just hers. ” Sanctimonius. Cloisered.  Liberal. Condescending. Arrogant. Flibbertigibbet.

Sharyl Attkisson Martyred for the Truth

Democrat Media Monkeys Citing Liberal Bias, Investigative Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Resigns From CBS News “While some at CBS championed her relentless dedication to investigations — ranging from defective Firestone tires to the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal — others saw evidence of a political agenda, particularly against President Barack Obama [...] led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting”   CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has reached an agreement to resign from CBS News ahead of contract, bringing an end to months of hard-fought negotiations, sources familiar with her departure told POLITICO on Monday. Attkisson, who has been with CBS News for two decades, had grown frustrated with what she saw as the network’s liberal bias, an outsize influence by the network’s corporate partners and a lack of dedication to investigative reporting, several sources said. She increasingly felt that her work was no longer supported and that it was a struggle to get her reporting on air. At the same time, Attkisson’s reporting on the Obama administration, which some staffers characterized as agenda-driven, had led network executives to doubt the impartiality of her reporting. She is currently at work on a book — tentatively titled “Stonewalled: One Reporter’s Fight for Truth in Obama’s Washington” — that addresses the challenges of reporting critically on the administration.   [More] Like many of you, I automatically read any CBS reporter's musings with a jaundiced eye.  In fact, I have often wondered in print about the possibility that Edward R. Murrow was a Soviet mole who hired fellow travelers (like Wally Cronkite) to build a great disinfo media outlet for his masters.  So it is that I was always surprised when a Drudge linked Obamunist exposé led me to CBS News,  and a report by Sharyl Attkisson.  After a fashion I was less inclined to lump all things CBS with Obamunist agitprop.  That's over.  The Town Hall article ends,"This is an incredible loss for CBS and no doubt another network's gain. Hopefully she'll land at a place where her important work will be aired and promoted."  There is then only one option, isn't there?  Blah-blah By the By, I wonder if the Drive-by 'tooninsts will react the same way they did after Dan Rather was fired (after  CBS brass ran out of ways to excuse him? ”

Wht the media are despised

The Lynching “ "Zimmerman thought pretty reasonably in my opinion that if he didn't act he would indeed die that night which is why the police did not charge in and refused to charge it until the President and Attorney General of the United States brought  overwhelming political pressure in contradiction all the evidence for a prosecution ... ." [Transcript from 6:50 mark] Unlike, say me, Bill Whittle has the respect of many of the very lame-streamers who participated in this lynching.  They'll watch, or at least hear suggestions to.  Will any of them apologize for running with the President's media mob?  I doubt it, but all of them will know inside themselves that they're disgraced.  And everybody they know will too.  The President and the AG of course are little more than street punks, and have no conscience.  They're responsible for that too. C.ricardo ”

The CNN Vajayjays

What's the play coach? “ CNN also added one to its ranks, poaching Chris Cuomo from ABC News. In a release Tuesday, CNN said Cuomo - the brother of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) - will have a “major role” in a new morning show and across the network. According to the Associated Press and Politico, he is expected to pair up with CNN’s Erin Burnett to host a new show that will replace “Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien.” TPN Some shake-up.  Let me axe you something.  What began CNN's slide into obscurity?  That's right; Fox News.   And, what did  FNC do that created such a television news whirlwind?  That's right.  They put together a news team, headed by Brit Hume—who had a sterling reputation at ABC News where he spakled  as White House correspondent. The Fox News hour, including the evening news with Shepard Smith, covered all the news, including stuff  the alphabet networks avoid like Nancy Pelosi avoids travelling coach.    That is, they dared Democrats to explain themselves.  A new paradigm for success?  You'd think. Just a week into CNN president Jeff Zucker’s tenure, he's painting the red walls a different shade of red.  He's saying, "Damn the West Coast Offense, I'm going with the T-formation!"  Failure percolating.  His greatest achievement will be to fire Piers Morgan; but also the easiest. The whole lineup reeks howvever. Nobody deserves to stay. What would I do?  Why I'd emulate FOX, and I'd quit tailoring my news so as not to offend foreigners.  But first, I'd have to un-ban word "foreigner." ”

Ain't They Cute?

The New York Times Covers the GOP

Getty Messages?

Not-So-Subliminal Do you suppose Getty Images have an agenda?  h/t  FreeRepublic

Today Shoe. Truth. In the same room?

“... the media is [sic] very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign want “ "The Obama folks clearly know they've found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney," said NBC's Lester Holt. "And then of course late in the week comes this challenge--'give us a little more and we won't complain anymore.' Has this issue come to the point it's jumped the shark?" "I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this," said Halperin. Since this is posted on Drudge, you likely have seen it.  But, Whoa!  NBC? Today Show?  Not a chance in hell that Lester Holt expeted this answer from Mark Halperin yesterday. ”

Tommy has a stiffy

A Stiff Challenge “ The NYT cracks me up.  There's the headline; here's the story: A poll released this week from Marquette Law School shows Mr. Thompson ahead, but a large chunk of voters still undecided. ”

Behind the scenes at CNN

vanderleun

CNN to the rescue ...

*spit*

Obama fights efforts to stop voter fraud

Obama campaign working to counter new voter ID laws “ The Washington Post ^ | 19 may 2012 | Amy Gardner Organizers will fan out in key swing states this weekend to teach volunteers and voters how to navigate a series of laws passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures imposing stricter identification requirements, limiting early voting and making it harder to organize voter-registration drives. It is the beginning of a months-long effort, campaign officials said, to combat what they described as a Republican effort to stifle voting among young people and minorities, two groups that traditionally tend to vote Democratic. I could have posted this under the "DEMOCRATS," or "OBAMA," banner, but chose ATTACK MONKEY MEDIA because this story blithely accepts Obamunist fears as rational.  Wait, they are rational.  I meant, without a hint of reproval.  Maybe it's just me, but for chrisake!— this story is a grand jury indictment of the Democrat party's addiction to voter fraud.  How can this story be played straight?   ”

WaPost/World News

CLICK!

CNN's Roland Martin ...

In case you're keeping track of Obamamedia asshats who keep getting fired, or suspended after using libelous, or incendiary rhetoric against their betters who've bested them in the public debate ....