Quote:These documents for the first time demonstrate that the US government has worked behind the scenes on over 800 major movies and more than 1,000 TV titles.

Quote:Tom Secker and Matthew Alford report on their astonishing findings from trawling through thousands of new US military and intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents reveal for the first time the vast scale of US government control in Hollywood, including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made — not to mention influencing some of the most popular film franchises in recent years.

This raises new questions not only about the way censorship works in the modern entertainment industry, but also about Hollywood’s little known role as a propaganda machine for the US national security apparatus.

---

When we first looked at the relationship between politics, film and television at the turn of the 21st century, we accepted the consensus opinion that a small office at the Pentagon had, on request, assisted the production of around 200 movies throughout the history of modern media, with minimal input on the scripts.
How ignorant we were.

More appropriately, how misled we had been.
We have recently acquired 4,000 new pages of documents from the Pentagon and CIA through the Freedom of Information Act. For us, these documents were the final nail in the coffin.

The previous best estimate, in a dry academic book way back in 2005, was that the Pentagon had worked on less than 600 films and an unspecified handful of television shows.

The CIA’s role was assumed to be just a dozen or so productions, until very good books by Tricia Jenkins and Simon Willmetts were published in 2016. But even then, they missed or underplayed important cases, including Charlie Wilson’s War and Meet the Parents.

Quote:Jazmine Barnes: Second man charged in drive-by shooting.

'Police in Houston have filed capital murder charges against a second man in connection with the
drive-by shooting death of a seven-year-old girl.


Eric Black Jr (left) and Larry Woodruffe have both been charged with capital murder.

Police say Larry Woodruffe, 24, killed Jazmine Barnes after he fired into her mother's car on 30 December.
He and Eric Black Jr, 20 -who authorities say acted as his getaway driver -have now been charged.
Police say the killing arose from a case of mistaken identity and that the family was not deliberately targeted.

Tuesday's arrest came as Jazmine's funeral was held -her family opted for an open coffin before the ceremony
at a Houston church.


Jazmine Barnes was shot in the head and died at the scene.

What happened?
Jazmine's mother, LaPorsha Washington, was in the car with Jazmine and her three sisters near a Houston-area
Walmart store on 30 December when a red pick-up truck pulled alongside them and a man inside opened fire.
Jazmine was struck in the head by a bullet and died at the scene.

Ms Washington was shot and injured in the arm.
The case caused widespread outrage and celebrities joined an appeal to find Jazmine's killer using the hashtag
#JusticeForJazmine. A rally in Houston on Saturday attracted about 1,000 people.
Ms Washington tearfully recounted the attack from her hospital bed and urged the gunman to give himself up.

A $100,000 (£79,300) reward for finding Jazmine's killer was also offered.
Both Eric Black and Larry Woodruffe were arrested on Saturday as the result of a tip-off, Harris County Sheriff's
Office said. Mr Black admitted taking part in the shooting. Charges were finally brought against Mr Woodruffe
on the basis of corroborating evidence

Who is the man in the photofit?
Both men charged are black but a photofit of a suspect released last week showed a white male believed to be
in his 30s or 40s.


A photofit based on witnesses' descriptions showed the gunman as white.

Campaigners had feared the shooting, targeting an African-American family, might be racially motivated.
When the suspect was wrongly identified as Robert Cantrell, his photos were circulated online by bloggers.
Police now believe the man in the photofit was a witness that Jazmine's sisters remembered, not a suspect,
WABC-TV reports.

His niece, Hailey Cantrell, said that threats had been sent to her Facebook page and she asked people to "back off".
"I just want everyone to back off," she said. "The truth is out. It had nothing to do with us, nothing to do with my uncle
at all."...'

Quote:A local San Diego television station said on Thursday that CNN invited them to provide a "local view" of the existing wall at the US-Mexico border, only to cancel after past reports from the station showed that the wall is an effective method of combating illegal immigration. 
San Diego border wall
"Thursday morning, CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if one of our reporters could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown," begins a report by local San Diego station KUSI. 
"KUSI offered our own Dan Plante, who has reported dozens of times on the border, including one story from 2016 that was retweeted by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and posted on DrudgeReport.com," the report continues.
Fencing along US-Mexico border between the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro ports in San Diego
"We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work," it concludes. "We have continuously been told by Border Patrol Agents that the barrier along the Southern border helps prevent illegal entries, drugs, and weapons from entering the United States, and the numbers prove it." 

Quote:Thursday morning, @CNN called the KUSI Newsroom asking if a reporter could give them a local view of the debate surrounding the border wall and government shutdown. After we informed them about our past reports, they declined to hear from us.

More info: https://t.co/RX4mB6EdNE pic.twitter.com/r0SAvWxFIm
— KUSI News (@KUSINews) January 11, 2019

Conservative pundits took notice;  

Quote:.@CNN to local station: can one of your reporters come on air to talk about how the Wall doesn’t work in San Diego?

Local station: it actually works well.

CNN: bye!

(Actually happened. Watch video.)#MAGA ??
pic.twitter.com/1c4bLLDsaI
— Harlan Z. Hill (@Harlan) January 11, 2019

Quote:No ethics. @brianstelter is a total propagandist and a liar.
— Ali Alexander (@ali) January 11, 2019

Quote:Dwayne Johnson says UK tabloid fabricated 'snowflake smackdown' rant

'Dwayne Johnson has hit out at a British tabloid for publishing what he calls a "100% fabricated" interview
that quotes the American actor criticizing millennials and "smacking down snowflakes."



Johnson, also known as "The Rock," said the interview with the Daily Star newspaper -- which appeared on
its front page and was billed as an "exclusive" --never took place. The story claimed Johnson was critical of
"PC softies" and said he "spoke out after a flood of snowflake stories hit the headlines."

"So many good people fought for freedom and equality --but this generation (is) looking for a reason to be
offended," the paper quoted Johnson as saying. The piece, written by Jack Andrews, remained online until
Saturday before it was eventually removed

 It had appeared on the Daily Star's front page the previous day under the headline, "The Rock Smacks Down
Snowflakes."
The Daily Star's publishers have not responded to a CNN request for comment.

The wrestler-turned-actor, who stars in "The Fast and Furious" movie franchise, posted a video on Instagram
denying he had taken part. "The interview never took place. Never happened. Never said any of those words,"
Johnson said. "Completely untrue. 100% fabricated. I was quite baffled when I woke up this morning."

Even before Johnson's video, commenters on Twitter had questioned whether the actor had really been angered by
news stories about millennials that had appeared in the UK media in recent months, as the story claimed.
The story said: "The superstar thinks that while the world has become a more tolerant and better place, whining
snowflakes are draining positive change through their constant moaning."

A quote attributed to Johnson added: "Generation snowflake or, whatever you want to call them, are actually putting us
backwards." The Star is overseen by the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the UK's largest regulator of
newspapers and magazines.

Its print edition has a daily circulation of 340,000 readers, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, which tracks
the performance of UK papers. ...'

Quote:Theresa May says no Brexit more likely than no deal



'Prime Minister Theresa May is making a last-ditch attempt to persuade MPs to back her Brexit deal
as Tuesday's key Commons vote looms closer.

She will use a speech on Monday to warn that Parliament is more likely to block Brexit than let the UK
leave without a deal...'

Quote:'...Mrs May will add that trust in politics will suffer "catastrophic harm" if the referendum result is not implemented.
Labour has vowed to table a vote of no confidence if Mrs May loses...'

Quote:'...Its leader Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would vote against the deal and would start moves to trigger a general
election if it is voted down. He told the BBC's Andrew Marr show: "We will table a motion of no confidence in the
government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon, don't worry about it."...'

Quote:'...Mrs May's speech comes amid reports MPs plan to take control of Brexit if her deal is defeated.
About 100 Conservative MPs, and the Democratic Unionist Party's 10 MPs, are currently expected to join Labour
and the other opposition parties in voting against the deal.

Speaking to factory workers, Mrs May will say on Monday: "As we have seen over the last few weeks, there are
some in Westminster who would wish to delay or even stop Brexit and who will use every device available to them
to do so." She is to add that she now believes MPs blocking Brexit is more likely than a no-deal scenario...'

Quote:'...Mrs May will say: "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our
democracy. "Imagine if an anti-devolution House of Commons had said to the people of Scotland or Wales that despite
voting in favour of a devolved legislature, Parliament knew better and would overrule them.
Or else force them to vote again...'

Quote:'..."What if we found ourselves in a situation where Parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a
remain vote? "People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm.
We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum."...'

Quote:'...She is to give the example of the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997, when people voted by a margin of 0.3% to
create the Welsh Assembly, arguing: "That result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that
institution has never seriously been questioned."

However, records show Mrs May did in fact herself vote against the establishment of the Welsh Assembly after that
referendum - while the 2005 Conservative manifesto pledged to offer the Welsh people a "referendum on whether
to keep the Assembly in its current form, increase its powers or abolish it"...'

Quote:'...In her speech on Monday, Mrs May will add: "Parliament understood this fact when it voted overwhelmingly to trigger
Article 50. And both major parties did so too when they stood on election manifestos in 2017 that pledged to honour
the result of the referendum."...'

Quote:

Buzzfeed, Question Time & the purpose of Fake News.

'Two days ago BuzzFeed published a front page story, under a “BREAKING” banner, headlined:
President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project

In the article, Buzzfeed reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier claim to have been told, by two anonymous
sources, that Robert Mueller’s “Russiagate” investigation had evidence Donald Trump had instructed his lawyer to
lie to Congress. That would be a felony, and obviously an impeachable offence.

The reaction of the news media and associated twitterati was as quick as it was predictable. MSNCBC, CNN,
the BBC, The Guardian…the usual suspects. They were all over it within hours.
But then, less than a day later, Robert Mueller’s spokesperson Peter Carr issued this statement:

"BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office,
and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding
Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,”

Despite this, BuzzFeed is sticking to its guns. Insisting that Mueller’s statement is vague, and therefore does not
undercut the heart of their story.

The rest of the mainstream media are sensing the tone though and jumping ship. The Washington Post –not known
for their pro-Trump slant –ran an editorial pointing out the scarcity of Mueller’s public comment (this the first statement
Mueller has ever issued concerning evidence or claims in the press), and arguing that the rush to refute the BuzzFeed
article means it is probably completely false.

Nevertheless, BuzzFeed has not retracted or altered their story in any way –except for putting in one small paragraph
reporting that Mueller’s office disputes their story. There is no note of the update, and the rest of the story remains
unchanged.

There is a striking parallel here, with a story Luke Harding contributed to The Guardian in late November last year:
“Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy”

The article claimed Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort had met with Julian Assange at least three times prior
to the 2016 Presidential Election. No evidence was produced, save the word of “unnamed intelligence officials”, “secret
Ecuadorian documents” and the like.

While the predictable news outlets picked up the story and ran with it with the eagerness of a 6-month-old Golden Retriever,
we in the alternative media were quick to point out the logical and factual deficiencies in the story.

Within hours, The Guardian had edited its language to be rather more circumspect, and include the denials made by both
accused parties. The edits made to the article were not noted or highlighted in any way, we only know they exist because
of internet archives.

The next day The Guardian released a brief, terse, defensive statement.
That statement was itself refuted by both Manafort and WikiLeaks. As of today, WikiLeaks is actively pursuing legal action
in this case. Later, it was revealed that a key contributor to the story had been previously been convicted of forgery.

No apology has been made, and no retraction issued, no explanation given. Both the editor, Katherine Viner, and Luke Harding
have been totally silent on the topic.

So, in the last 2 months both Buzzfeed and The Guardian have issued “BREAKING NEWS” stories that made bold claims,
but were not backed up with any evidence. Both these stories were shown to be untrue in less than 24 hours.

Anonymous sources are a common area here –both stories rely exclusively on the word of “unnamed sources” from either
“the intelligence services” or “government agencies”. Anonymous sources are the batarangs on the propagandist’s utility belt.
Flexible, simple, timeless.

Anonymity allows government agencies to leak misinformation on purpose, without hurting their credibility. It allows newspapers
to control public opinion without having any actual facts on hand. It allows intelligence agencies to plant narratives they may want
to revisit, or to give targets of blackmail operations a warning. And, most obviously, it allows journalists to simply make stuff up.

I don’t know which specific class these two stories fall into – but I do know it’s one or all of them.

So we come to the question of motive: BuzzFeed and The Guardian must have known there was no evidence to back up their
assertions (yet, anyway). They must know the “significant minority” of the population who believe “conspiracy theories about
their own government” will research and refute these claims.
So why publish them?

Well, in the Guardian’s case, every story demonising Assange discredits WikiLeaks’ future output, whilst also softening public
sympathy for Assange in preparation for potential extradition of to the US. All the mainstream press have turned on WikiLeaks,
but The Guardian –for some reason –has a particularly strong institutional axe to grind with WikiLeaks, and specifically Julian
Assange.

Similarly, every “Russia bad!” story primes the public to accept increased defence spending, increased control of the internet
by the government and increased social media censorship. It is very much the gift that keeps on giving in that regard.

In BuzzFeed’s case, it has been apparent for a while now that the Mueller investigation is likely to fizzle. Articles and interviews 
rom various media sources have been prepping the public for a “let down” for a few weeks.
At this point, there is no case for impeaching Trump. But the Deep State still needs to keep him over a barrel.

Trump has been a disappointment to his base and is yet to implement half the policies he discussed on the campaign trail, but
he’s not fully and totally being controlled by the warhawking Deep State yet, either. His policy of peace with North Korea and
decisions to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan show that there is a tug-of-war ongoing inside the administration.

It’s probably no coincidence that this latest of many “bombshells” comes so quickly on the heels of Trump’s announcement of the
Syria withdrawal.

Careful “leaks”, planted stories and social media witch-hunts remind Trump how precarious his position is, whilst simultaneously
distracting the public –both pro-Trump and anti-Trump –from real issues.

The case-specific “why?” doesn’t matter so much as the general aim of this type of manipulation.
The important question is: Why does the media tell lies if they know they will be revealed as such?
Clearly, the lies serve a purpose, regardless of their retraction or qualification.

Telling a lie loudly and then taking it back quietly is an old propaganda trick –it allows the paper to maintain a facade of “accountability”.
The point of this practice is to propagate lies into the public consciousness. It’s a method that can be used to distract and disseminate
and divide.

The accuracy of the statement is immaterial. The point is, once it has been said it cannot be unsaid.
There are countless examples: “Assange was working for Russia”, “Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress”,
“Russia hacked the US election”, “Donald Trump worked for the KGB”, “Assad gassed his own people”,
“Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite”.

The list goes on and on and on. None these have been proven. All were asserted without evidence, fiercely defended as facts,
and then discretely qualified. That is the purpose of “fake news”, to forge the Empire’s “created reality”, and force us all to live in it.
These are world-shaping, policy-informing, news-dominating narratives…and are nothing but feathers in the wind.

A perfect examplar of this occurred just two days ago on the BBC’s flagship Political debate show Question Time:

The (notionally impartial) host not only sided with right-wing author Isabel Oakeshott in criticising Labour’s polling, but then joined
in mocking the Labour MP Diane Abbott for attempting to correct the record.

Both Oakeshott and Fiona Bruce, the host, were factually incorrect –as shown a hundred times over since.
But that doesn’t matter. The lie was told, the audience laughed, the reality was created. “Labour are behind in the polls, anybody
who says otherwise is a laughingstock”.

The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.
That’s why fake news is so important to them, and so dangerous us...'

(01-20-2019, 11:20 AM)BIAD Wrote: A fine piece that looks at how the mainstream media's default position is to ignore the goal of accurate information
and instead, strive to entertain with unverified biased gossip.

Quote:

Buzzfeed, Question Time & the purpose of Fake News.

'Two days ago BuzzFeed published a front page story, under a “BREAKING” banner, headlined:
President Trump Directed His Attorney Michael Cohen To Lie To Congress About The Moscow Tower Project

In the article, Buzzfeed reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier claim to have been told, by two anonymous
sources, that Robert Mueller’s “Russiagate” investigation had evidence Donald Trump had instructed his lawyer to
lie to Congress. That would be a felony, and obviously an impeachable offence.

The reaction of the news media and associated twitterati was as quick as it was predictable. MSNCBC, CNN,
the BBC, The Guardian…the usual suspects. They were all over it within hours.
But then, less than a day later, Robert Mueller’s spokesperson Peter Carr issued this statement:

"BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office,
and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding
Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate,”

Despite this, BuzzFeed is sticking to its guns. Insisting that Mueller’s statement is vague, and therefore does not
undercut the heart of their story.

SOURCE:

Quote:CINCINNATI – A Catholic high school in Kentucky apologized Saturday after backlash arose on social media as a widely shared video showed a group of young men surrounding indigenous marchers in Washington, D.C.

The video shows a young man wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap standing near and staring at a man who is drumming as other young men surrounding them cheer and chant. Some of the onlookers appear to wear clothing bearing insignia from Covington Catholic High School in Park Hills, Kentucky. 

The indigenous man holding a drum was participating in an Indigenous Peoples March and was later identified as Nathan Phillips, a Vietnam veteran and Native American elder of the Omaha tribe, by Indian Country Today.

Quote:It’s even worse when you see the full mob effect. pic.twitter.com/Oe7Zn5srOB
— Lulu Says (@lulu_says2) January 19, 2019

In a joint statement Saturday, the school and Diocese of Covington said they were reviewing the incident and they would "take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion."

"We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general, Jan. 18, after the March for Life, in Washington, D.C. We extend our deepest apologies to Mr. Phillips. This behavior is opposed to the Church’s teachings on the dignity and respect of the human person," the statement read.
People across social media platforms condemned the incident as an attempt by the group of young men to intimidate the marchers and had called for a response from the school. 

Covington Catholic's website said students planned to attend the March for Life event, held Friday in Washington, D.C., the same day as the Indigenous Peoples March.

Quote:Partial video footage of students from a Catholic high school allegedly harassing a Native American veteran after the anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., on Saturday quickly went viral, provoking widespread condemnation of the kids on social media. Various media figures and Twitter users called for them to be doxed, shamed, or otherwise punished, and school administrators said they would consider expulsion.

But the rest of the video—nearly two hours of additional footage showing what happened before and after the encounter—adds important context that strongly contradicts the media's narrative.

Far from engaging in racially motivated harassment, the group of mostly white, MAGA-hat-wearing male teenagers remained relatively calm and restrained despite being subjected to incessant racist, homophobic, and bigoted verbal abuse by members of the bizarre religious sect Black Hebrew Israelites, who were lurking nearby. The BHI has existed since the late 19th century, and is best describes as a black nationalist cult movement; its members believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites, and often express condemnation of white people, Christians, and gays. DC-area Black Hebrews are known to spout particularly vile bigotry.

Phillips put himself between the teens and the black nationalists, chanting and drumming as he marched straight into the middle of the group of young people. What followed was several minutes of confusion: The teens couldn't quite decide whether Phillips was on their side or not, but tentatively joined in his chanting. It's not at all clear this was intended as an act of mockery rather than solidarity.

One student did not get out of Phillips way as he marched, and gave the man a hard stare and a smile that many have described as creepy. This moment received the most media coverage: The teen has been called the product of a "hate factory" and likened to a school shooter, segregation-era racist, and member of the Klu Klux Klan. I have no idea what he was thinking, but portraying this as an example of obvious, racially-motivated hate is a stretch. Maybe he simply had no idea why this man was drumming in his face, and couldn't quite figure out the best response? It bears repeating that Phillips approached him, not the other way around.

And that's all there is to it. Phillips walked away after several minutes, the Black Hebrew Israelites continued to insult the crowd, and nothing else happened.

You can judge for yourself. Here is video footage of the full incident, from the perspective of the black nationalists. Phillips enters the picture around the 1:12 mark, but if you skip to that part, you miss an hour of the Black Hebrew Israelites hurling obscenities at the students. They call them crackers, faggots, and pedophiles. At the 1:20 mark (which comes after the Phillips incident) they call one of the few black students the n-word and tell him that his friends are going to murder him and steal his organs. At the 1:25 mark, they complain that "you give faggots rights," which prompted booing from the students. Throughout the video they threaten the kids with violence, and attempt to goad them into attacking first. The students resisted these taunts admirably: They laughed at the hecklers, and they perform a few of their school's sports cheers.

It was at this moment that Phillips, who had attended a nearby peace protest led by indigenous peoples, decided to intervene. He would later tell The Detroit Free Press that the teenagers "were in the process of attacking these four black individuals" and he decided to attempt to de-escalate the situation. He seems profoundly mistaken: The video footage taken by the black nationalists shows no evidence the white teenagers had any intention of attacking. Nevertheless, Phillips characterized the kids as "beasts" and the hate-group members as "their prey":

Quote:"There was that moment when I realized I've put myself between beast and prey," Phillips said. "These young men were beastly and these old black individuals was their prey, and I stood in between them and so they needed their pounds of flesh and they were looking at me for that."

Again, all the evidence suggests that Phillips got it backward.

He also claimed that he heard chants of "build the wall." While I cannot rule out the possibility that some of the kids indeed chanted this—those who were wearing MAGA hats are presumably Trump supporters—I did not hear a single utterance of the phrase in the nearly two hours of video footage I watched. Admittedly, the kids do a lot of chanting and it's not always possible to tell what they are saying. Their stated explanation is that they engaged in a series of school sports chants: That's what one student told a local news reporter. His account largely tracks with the video.

"We are an all-male school that loves to get hyped up," said this student. "And as we have done for years prior, we decided to do some cheers to pass time. In the midst of our cheers, we were approached by a group of adults led by Nathan Phillips, with Phillips beating his drum. They forced their way to the center of our group. We initially thought this was a cultural display since he was beating along to our cheers and so we clapped to the beat." According to this student, the smiling student was grinning because he was enjoying the music, but eventually became confused, along with everyone else. (Indeed, multiple people can be heard to shout, "what is going on?")

It would be impossible to definitively state that none of the young men did anything wrong, offensive, or problematic, at some point, and maybe the smiling student was attempting to intimidate Phillips. But there's shockingly little evidence of wrongdoing, unless donning a Trump hat and standing in a group of other people doing the same is now an act of harassment or violence. Phillips' account, meanwhile, is at best flawed, and arguably deliberately misleading.

Unless other information emerges, the school's best move would be to have a conversation with the boys about the incident, perhaps discuss some strategies for remaining on perfect behavior at highly charged political rallies—where everybody is recording everything on a cell phone—and let that be the end of it.

The boys are undoubtedly owed an apology from the numerous people who joined this social media pile-on. This is shaping up to be one of the biggest major media misfires in quite some time.

(01-21-2019, 11:48 AM)BIAD Wrote:

Quote:House Budget Committee chair Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) called Sunday for a ban on teenagers wearing “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hats, in response to a viral video of a confrontation between Catholic students and Native American counter-demonstrators at the March for Life on Friday in Washington, DC.

He blamed President Donald Trump for the students’ behavior.

Quote:Yarmuth tweeted:

Quote:I am calling for a total and complete shutdown of teenagers wearing MAGA hats until we can figure out what is going on. They seem to be poisoning young minds. [1/2] https://t.co/yq5bLd4kE2
— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) January 20, 2019

Quote:The conduct we saw in this video is beyond appalling, but it didn’t happen in a vacuum. This is a direct result of the racist hatred displayed daily by the President of the United States who, sadly, some mistake for a role model. [2/2]
— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) January 20, 2019

The MAGA hats are one of the most recognizable symbols of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign, and are commonly worn by Trump supporters.

Quote:However, as numerous critics have pointed out, the confrontation was widely mis-reported, and took place in almost exactly the opposite way it had been reported in the mainstream media.

The students had been targeted by racial slurs, and the Native American activist approached them, rather than the other way around.

(01-21-2019, 07:11 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote:

...However, more video emerged and contradicted Phillips’ account that Sandmann
and his peers were the aggressors and appeared to show that Phillips approached
the MAGA hat-wearing students aggressively hammering his drum in their faces...

Quote:Rob Sanders, a Kenton County Prosecutor, confirmed Tuesday that there are multiple investigations into Twitter users who made terroristic threats against Covington Catholic High School.

“We’ve got multiple ongoing investigations into numerous, numerous threats,” Mr. Sanders said Tuesday in a podcast interview with 700 WLW. “There’s probably a dozen law enforcement agencies, if not more involved in this — it’s growing, it’s spreading, there are other jurisdictions now involved in this,” Sanders added.

700 WLW radio host Willie Cunningham brought up the death threats towards the Covington teens made by bluecheck verified accounts on Twitter and asked Mr. Sanders about Kentucky law.

Hollywood producer Jack Morrissey said the ‘MAGA hat kids should go into a woodchipper’ and LA DJ Michael Buchanan AKA ‘House Shoes’ called for Covington HS to be burned down with the teens locked inside.
“What is the Kentucky law about making threats to Covington Catholic specifically? Is there a law against it?” Willie asked Rob Sanders.
“There is. It’s called ‘terroristic threatening’ in Kentucky and it is a felony offense punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison to make a threat of violence to an educational institution, so everyone who makes a specific threat.”
Mr. Sanders made sure to clarify that saying “nasty things” about the Covington kids is not the same thing as making an “actual threat of violence” against Cov Cath or any other school in Kentucky that’s punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison. The punishment can go up to 5 to 10 years if they talk about using a weapon of mass destruction.

Mr. Sanders reminded listeners to the radio show that it’s not going to be an immediate process because these investigations take time. “You have to prove who’s behind the Twitter handle,” Sanders explained.

“It’s not an immediate process, but it is a process that will get done,” Sanders said, adding, “It will not surprise me to see charges against multiple people before this is all over.”

Rob Sanders made it clear in a Sunday night tweet that he would not tolerate any threats against Covington Catholic High School or any educational institution for that matter, and fired a warning shot to people threatening acts of violence.
The Gateway Pundit reached out to Rob Sanders via email to make him aware of specific threats to Covington Catholic High School that were posted to Twitter by Michael Buchanan, AKA ‘House Shoes.’

This reporter informed Mr. Sanders that the Los Angeles Police Department was made aware of Mr. Buchanan’s threats to burn down Cov Cath with the children locked inside.

Mr. Sanders promptly responded by asking for contact information from anyone at the LAPD involved in the investigation, however; he did not provide further comment.

Thank you Rob Sanders for your swift action, commitment to the rule of law and for protecting the children at Covington Catholic High School.

Just because Twitter says these vile leftists threatening to burn children alive ‘didn’t violate rules’ doesn’t mean they are immune from the real law of the land. Take that, Twitter.

Quote:DC McAllister‏Verified account  @McAllisterDen 2h2 hours ago


These are some of the people the Covington lawyer is threatening to sue:
Kathy Griffin
USA Today
Andrea Mitchell
The Washington Post
Maggie Haberman of the NY Times
Esquire
S.E. Cupp
Tom Watson

Quote:Those lying, left-leaning lunatics who sully the name of journalism released another ‘bombshell’ designed to destroy President Trump.

Buzzfeed dropped such a bombshell and everyone thought it would mean the end of Trump. It was another dud. Buzzfeed has lied so much they should change their name to ‘Bunkfeed.’

The coastal city newspapers and former ‘mainstream’ media as well as the liberal Internet media remain relentless in their determination to remove a lawfully-elected president from office by means of outright lying, which really amounts to sedition.

Bill Maher relentlessly calls Trump a traitor and Putin puppet, even though there’s not one shred of evidence to support his vitriol. “Trump is DaAaangerrrousss!” Maher exclaimed. So are you, Bill—you’re a dangerous Deep State tool. Your handlers know how comedy helps sugarcoat their propaganda. There IS plenty of evidence to show Hillary and Mueller colluded with Russia, but that is ignored. Maher called Trump a traitor who should be removed from office.

That’s the main purpose of the Deep State’s lying media megaphones. They will make up any kind of bunk to justify the removal of our lawfully elected president. Trump’s life is also in mortal danger. It’s a good thing he has many levels of  security protecting him.

Opinion is one thing, but reporting ‘facts’ that are quickly revealed as lies is bad journalism and a disservice to citizens. Breathless, breaking news and large headlines are used to grab attention. Lies are screamed out to suggest Trump is guilty. Then, later and in a much quieter manner, their stories are refuted or retracted. Yet the lies are what the public remembers.

Hearsay or anonymous sources are used by such the legion of those nattering nabobs of Trump negativism.
They are paid to perform their jumping jacks of lies when their Deep State handlers pull their strings. The LA Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Yahoo, The Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and a legion of other liberal mouthpieces are now constantly spewing slanted, anti-Trump hatred. They hope one of their bombshells will eventually explode and do damage.

None of their bombs have hit the target and they can’t stand the fact that President Trump is still standing.