CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources’ Speculates Trump Inspired Murder of Saudi Journalist

On CNN’s Sunday broadcast of “Reliable Sources,” host Brian Stelter and Washington Post editorial editor Fred Hiatt used a segment about disappeared Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi to baselessly speculate that President Trump’s harsh criticism of mainstream Americans news outlets could have had a part in inspiring Khashoggi’s murder.

Although they still had no direct evidence that Khashoggi had even been killed at that point, let alone any information about why the Saudi government would murder him, Stelter felt the urge to suggest that Trump, along with “other world leaders,” might be responsible for motivating Khashoggi’s murder and dismemberment. . .:

HIATT: I think, even for people who wanted to give MBS [Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman] the benefit of the doubt, this has to be a watershed moment. This is, if the reports are true, a crime of an entirely different caliber, and it should not be possible for anybody to go back to business as usual.

STELTER: To lure someone to a consulate, to dismember a body and take it back to Saudi — it is a crime of a different caliber. I wonder if you look at what’s happened in the last twelve days and you wonder if “enemy of the people” rhetoric — not just from President Trump, but also then from other world leaders — has anything to do with this, anything at all?

Although he seemed a bit hesitant to fully agree with Stelter’s premise at first, Hiatt did ultimately concur that Trump’s “enemy of the people”-type statements about American journalists were “part of the big picture” surrounding Khashoggi’s presumed murder. After stressing that his killers should be the “focus” of any condemnation or investigation, Hiatt also argued that Trump’s lack of liberal international moralizing about “democratic values” had opened up the possibility of murdering journalists. (Read more from “CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources’ Speculates Trump Inspired Murder of Saudi Journalist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What This ‘Study’ Claiming You’re More Likely to Be Shot by a Cop in Pro-Gun States Doesn’t Mention

Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Northeastern University came together to study the correlation between states’ gun ownership and officer-involved shootings. The researchers published their findings in the Journal for Urban Health. Their grandiose takeaway: if you live in a state with “looser” gun laws – AKA you’re allowed to utilize your Second Amendment rights – then you’re more likely to be shot by police officers.

Their abstract has three main points that are rather troubling:

Although numerous studies have examined how rates of police killings of civilians are related to several ecologic determinants of these events, no peer-reviewed study to date has examined the extent to which variation in police involved firearm homicides is explained by firearm prevalence while adjusting for violent crime rates (the most well-established ecologic factor associated with fatal police shootings).

What do researches consider a “violent” crime? Are they using the FBI’s definition which includes “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault”? . . .

The researchers are using data from the Washington Post, a liberal, anti-gun publication. You know what that means: they’re going to cherry pick which “data” they include. And you know the data they store is going to fit their gun control narrative. (Read more from “What This ‘Study’ Claiming You’re More Likely to Be Shot by a Cop in Pro-Gun States Doesn’t Mention” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is What Happened With the Stormy Daniels Lawsuit

A federal judge on Monday dismissed porn star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Trump, saying the president was well within his First Amendment rights when he took to Twitter to mock her.

Judge S. James Otero said Mr. Trump was using understandable hyperbole when he accused the woman, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, of a “con job” after she released a sketch artist rendering of a man she said threatened her to stay silent about her alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump years ago.

The judge, a Bush appointee, said the back-and-forth was standard politicking from both sides, and he wouldn’t step in to limit the president’s ability to fight back.

“In short, should plaintiff publicly voice her opinions about Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump is entitled to publicly voice non-actionable opinions about plaintiff,” he ruled. “To allow plaintiff to proceed with her defamation action would, in effect, permit plaintiff to make public allegations against the president without giving him the opportunity to respond. Such a holding would violate the First Amendment.” . . .

[Avenatti] also said the judge’s ruling was “limited,” and insisted they’ll pursue Mrs. Clifford’s other lawsuits against Mr. Trump and his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who she says paid her $130,000 in hush money to keep her from talking about an alleged sexual encounter from years ago. (Read more from “This Is What Happened With the Stormy Daniels Lawsuit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jeff Sessions Rips Judges Over Anti-Trump Bias

Attorney General Jeff Sessions unleashed a blistering assault on federal judges Monday, saying anti-Trump bias has led some to abandon their role as legal referees and become “political actors” erecting roadblocks to the president’s policies.

In unusually stark language, Mr. Sessions suggested judges could soon face “calls for their replacement” if they don’t cool it.

He blasted one judge who called the president’s policy toward illegal immigrants “heartless,” and said another judge put “the inner workings of a Cabinet secretary’s mind” on trial to pave a path to block the government from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census.

“Once we go down this road in American government, there is no turning back,” Mr. Sessions said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation. “We are seeing it in case after case. When a hot-button policy issue ends up in litigation, judges are starting to believe their role is to examine the entire process that led to the policy decision — to redo the entire political debate in their courtrooms. . .

Others, including a majority of justices on the Supreme Court in this year’s ruling upholding the president’s travel limits, looked chiefly at the policies themselves, saying that’s the crux of their judiciary’s role in the government overall. (Read more from “Jeff Sessions Rips Judges Over Anti-Trump Bias” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Transgender Cyclist Celebrates World Championship in Women’s Event, Attacks Critics

On Sunday, two women competing in the women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles wound up finishing second and third, losing to a biologically male Canadian professor who identifies as a woman.

As The Daily Caller reported, McKinnon finished ahead of Carolien Van Herrikhuyzen of the Netherlands and American cyclist Jennifer Wagner to take home the gold. Last January, USA Today quoted McKinnon railing against any requirement that would force men to suppress their testosterone in order to enter women’s events. McKinnon stated, “We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sports. Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn’t be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.” . . .

Another transgender . . ., who competes on a higher level than McKinnon, has argued with McKinnon, acknowledging that the inherent sex differences between men and women making competing against women unfair. (Read more from “Transgender Cyclist Celebrates World Championship in Women’s Event, Says Critics Are ‘Transphobic Bigots'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘People Just Can’t Know That’: Senator, Staff Exposed in Undercover Sting Video

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a new undercover video Monday night showing Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and her staffers expressing support for radical gun control measures that they admit she can’t state publicly.

The video shows McCaskill and her staff admitting that she supports banning semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, along with supporting other far-left policies.

Rob Mills, who works on McCaskill’s campaign, says in the video that McCaskill can’t be open about her policies because “she has a bunch of Republican voters” and “that could hurt her ability to get elected.”

Nicolas Starost, who also works McCaskill’s campaign, says in the video that former President Barack Obama isn’t campaigning for McCaskill because she doesn’t want to be cast as too far-left, even though she believes in the same policies that Obama does.

(Read more from “‘People Just Can’t Know That’: Senator, Staff Exposed in Undercover Sting Video” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Uh-Oh: It’s Not Looking Good for Keith Ellison in Minnesota

Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison is running for Attorney General of Minnesota, but it no longer appears he’ll sail to victory, in part thanks to allegations of domestic abuse that have surfaced in recent weeks.

As Democrats urged Americans to “believe all women” during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, they were quietly trying to ignore allegations that Ellison had abused his longtime girlfriend (and possibly his ex-wife).

The oversight has led to questions about whether the Democratic Party — and, in particular, Minnesota’s state party — is really interested in fully investigating allegations of sexual assault and “believing all women” who suggest they may have been physically abused.

Last month, The Hill reports, Ellison was running five points ahead of his Republican challenger, Minnesota state Rep. Doug Wardlow. . .

The allegations against Ellison surfaced in a Facebook post published over the summer by the son of Ellison’s former girlfriend. Recently, outside sources close to the woman suggest she has evidence in the form of photos and videos but hasn’t brought the information forward to police. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party says they conducted an investigation into the matter but that they could not substantiate the claims of abuse. (Read more from “Uh-Oh: It’s Not Looking Good for Keith Ellison in Minnesota” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Congress Must Shed Reputation as Our Most Dysfunctional Institution

To say that Congress is a “dysfunctional institution” is not exactly profound. As our federal legislature winds down yet another fractious and unproductive term, explanations for its decline are everywhere. Indeed, diagnosing the problems of Congress has become a veritable American cottage industry. Whether it is gridlock, partisanship, the decline of civility, the Republicans, the Democrats, lawmakers who keep their families out of Washington, the filibuster, committee system, earmarks, the lack of term limits, lobbyists, and big money, there is an explanation to suit every turn of mind and a supposed panacea to match it.

The reality, however, is that we have been trying to “reform” Congress for more than a century, yet we are as far from a properly functioning legislature as at any time in our history. Why is this? Contemporary reform efforts cannot adequately address the failures of this branch of government because they do not adequately tackle the core problem, which is the demise of Congress as a legislative institution.

The Constitution tells us that “all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The Framers understood that there exists a legislative, or lawmaking power, fundamentally distinct from executive power and judicial power. Laws govern society by informing citizens what they can do, what they must do, and what they are permitted, but not required to do. It is precisely this power that Congress has abdicated over the past century. Sometimes, it simply does not pass legislation. This is especially true during periods of divided government and over contentious issues like immigration reform. But even when Congress is able to pass legislation, it consistently fails to make key decisions regarding the rules of action.

As an example, the Communications Act of 1934 instructed the newly created Federal Communications Commission to issue broadcast licenses as the “public interest, convenience, or necessity” required. But because Congress failed to define that, the agency made those judgments. Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 required employers and educational institutions to avoid imposing an “undue hardship” on disabled individuals by providing “reasonable accommodations.” But what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” or an “undue hardship”? Often, employers and educational institutions do not know until they are sued and a judge tells them what they must do to comply with the law. (Read more from “Congress Must Shed Reputation as Our Most Dysfunctional Institution” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NBC Forced to Issue Apology After Intentionally Editing Trump Speech

NBC News issued a correction Sunday after reporting that President Trump described Gen. Robert E. Lee as “incredible,” acknowledging that the president was referring to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.

“An earlier tweet misidentified the general President Trump described as ‘incredible’ at a rally in Ohio,” said the network’s correction. “It was Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, not Gen. Robert E. Lee.”

Mr. Trump, who had accused NBC of twisting his remarks on purpose, responded by retweeting the post and thanking the network.


. . .

Multiple media outlets were criticized for their coverage of Mr. Trump’s Civil War-themed remarks, reporting that he praised the Confederate general but omitting that the president’s point was to illustrate the greatness of the Union Army leader, an Ohio native. (Read more from “NBC Forced to Issue Apology After Intentionally Editing Trump Speech” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How I Know the United States Is on the Brink of Another Civil War

In the course of my journalistic career, which has spanned several decades and countless interesting assignments, I’ve won many awards and often been touted as “the most important writer of this time, or any time.” I usually shrug off such platitudes, even if they’re true. However, not in all my days have I ever seen anything as terrible as what’s gripping the United States of America today.

I began my work covering a civil war in Africa—or maybe it was Asia. But I never thought I’d end it (not that my career is actually ending) covering a civil war in my home country. Yet here I sit, high atop Mount Winchester with only my beleaguered manservant Roger for company, and civil war is what I see on my TV.

The fight over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh has turned America into the bloodiest battleground in the history of the world. Perhaps most or all of the blood spilled has been metaphorical, even rhetorical, but it’s still as sticky as a locker room after a hockey fight. . .

Make no mistake, this is a terrifying conflict. What began as an argument over whether a federal judge may have sexually assaulted a young woman at a teenage party in the 1980s will soon turn into an armed battle where millions of people will die. Millions more will starve to death. Countless thousands will be imprisoned in cattle pens and die from infections of their grievous wounds. Do you think I’m exaggerating? Look at Twitter. People are mean to one another there. . .

All signs point toward civil war, just like the last time. Fancy boys dance jigs to banjo music, albeit mostly in Brooklyn. Families stockpile oats. The country finds itself deeply divided over the issue of whether one somewhat seedy political operative has the judicial temperament to serve on the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the president, a homely underdog from humble beginnings, is trying but failing to preserve the Union with his soaring oratory. (Read more from “How I Know the United States Is on the Brink of Another Civil War” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.