wnd--2020-09-14--Wildfires to get worse thanks to Clinton policies, says fire expert who predicted uptick in blazes

• Former President Bill Clinton ’ s land management rules and other liberal policies paved the way for future debilitating wildfires , fire expert Bob Zybach told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
• Zybach warned of potential disastrous wildfires shortly after Clinton signed a slate of rules in the mid-1990s that drastically reduced logging and road creation on federal lands .
• Zybach ’ s comments come as California , Oregon , and parts of Washington deal with catastrophic wildfires that have killed 26 people and destroyed buildings .
Former President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast , according to one fire expert who predicted the problem years ago .
Shortly before leaving office in 2001 , Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state , Bob Zybach , an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science , told the Daily Caller News Foundation .
The former president ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues .
“ If you don ’ t start managing these forests , then they are going to start burning up .
Thirty years later , they are still ignoring it , ” said Zybach , who spent more than 20 years as a reforestation contractor .
He was referring to warnings he made years ago , telling officials that warding off prescribed burns in Oregon and California creates kindling fuelling fires .
Such rules make it more difficult to deploy prescribed burns , which are controlled burns designed to cull all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance of massive fires , Zybach noted .
Years of keeping these areas in their natural state result in dead trees and dried organic material settling on the forest floor , which become like matchsticks soaked in jet fuel during dry seasons , he said .
Zybach ’ s comments come as wildfires continue churning through parts of California , Oregon , and Washington , media reports show .
Fires have killed 26 people in West Coast states since August , including 19 people in California , and have culminated in more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representing roughly 10 % of the state ’ s overall population .
Roughly 100 massive fires are blazing Saturday in the West , including 12 in Idaho and nine in Montana , the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday .
All told , the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states .
Shortly before leaving office , Clinton introduced the Roadless Rule that restricted the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest , making it difficult for officials to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kindling that fuels massive conflagrations .
The move was part of the Northwest Forest Plan ( NWFP ) , a resolution adopted by Clinton in 1994 to protect forests from being over-logged .
Ten years before Clinton ’ s rule , the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species Act , forcing the Forest Service to adopt a new policy that resulted in a greater reduction in timber harvests .
The amount of timber removed from federal lands plummeted , according to data accumulated in 2015 by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 million feet of timber was removed each year from Forest Service land between 1960 and 1990 , the data show .
Those numbers dropped between 1991 and 2000 and continued dropping — an average of only 2.1 billion feet of timber was removed from the land between 2000 and 2013 , according to the data .
That ’ s an 80 % decline .
“ They ’ ve gone and left hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt timber , a fire bomb waiting to happen , standing in place because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Zybach said .
“ It ’ s great for lawyers , but it ’ s bad for people who breathe air or work in the woods.
” “ The prescribed burns are an ancient form of management for keeping the fuels down so these events don ’ t happen , ” Zybach added , referring to Native American Indians who used controlled burns to ward away pests and prevent wildfires from licking their homes .
Overzealous fire suppression across California are helping to build up wildland fuels , which contribute to wildfires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire ecologist who began a career in the 1980s as a wildland firefighter .
The solution is “ to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load , ” he told ProPublica in August .
“ It ’ s just … well … it ’ s horrible .
Horrible to see this happening when the science is so clear and has been clear for years .
I suffer from Cassandra syndrome , ” Ingalsbee said , referring to the Cassandra Syndrome , a Greek metaphor people use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not heeded .
“ Every year I warn people : Disaster ’ s coming .
We got to change .
And no one listens .
And then it happens.
” Other experts have made similar arguments in the past .
Overgrown grasslands , forests , and woodlands contributed to California wildfires in 2017 , Sasha Berleman , a fire ecologist , told High Country News that year .
“ I ’ m more certain than ever that there ’ s a lot we can do between now and the next time this happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences to people are nowhere near as dramatic , ” she said .
The devastating fires that ran through California ’ s wine country in October of 2017 killed 42 people and destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings , High Country News noted .
The solution might be easier said than done .
Nearly 20 million acres in California , or an area about the size of Maine , will need to experience controlled burns to limit catastrophic wildfires , a January study from Nature Sustainability found .
Former President Barack Obama suggested in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a result of climate change .
“ The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities , ” Obama wrote in a tweet that included pictures showing how soot and ash from the wildfires are turning San Francisco ’ s sky bright orange .
Obama isn ’ t the only prominent Democrat tying the fires to global warming .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , a Democrat from New York , published a tweet Saturday that read : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate crisis is literally in the air around us.
” Schumer included a link to a Sept. 10 article from CBS blaming climate change for the fires .
Zybach is not convinced .
“ The lack of active land management is almost 100 percent the cause , ” he told the DCNF , noting that climate change has almost nothing to do with fire kindling gathering across the forest floors .
Other researchers share his skepticism .
“ Global warming may contribute slightly , but the key factors are mismanaged forests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people living where they should not , invasive flammable species , and the fact that California has always had fire , ” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told TheDCNF in 2018 .
Mass ’ s critique came as Mendocino Complex Fire was spreading across California on its way to becoming the largest wildfire in the state , engulfing more than 283,000 acres .
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

By Chris White
Daily Caller News Foundation
Former President Bill Clinton’s land management rules and other liberal policies paved the way for future debilitating wildfires, fire expert Bob Zybach told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Zybach warned of potential disastrous wildfires shortly after Clinton signed a slate of rules in the mid-1990s that drastically reduced logging and road creation on federal lands.
Zybach’s comments come as California, Oregon, and parts of Washington deal with catastrophic wildfires that have killed 26 people and destroyed buildings.
Former President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal land management nearly 30 years ago that created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast, according to one fire expert who predicted the problem years ago.
Shortly before leaving office in 2001, Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state, Bob Zybach, an experienced forester with a PhD in environmental science, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The former president’s decision created a ticking time bomb, Zybach argues.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
“If you don’t start managing these forests, then they are going to start burning up. Thirty years later, they are still ignoring it,” said Zybach, who spent more than 20 years as a reforestation contractor. He was referring to warnings he made years ago, telling officials that warding off prescribed burns in Oregon and California creates kindling fuelling fires.
Such rules make it more difficult to deploy prescribed burns, which are controlled burns designed to cull all of the underbrush in forests to lessen the chance of massive fires, Zybach noted. Years of keeping these areas in their natural state result in dead trees and dried organic material settling on the forest floor, which become like matchsticks soaked in jet fuel during dry seasons, he said.
Zybach’s comments come as wildfires continue churning through parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, media reports show. Fires have killed 26 people in West Coast states since August, including 19 people in California, and have culminated in more than half-a-million people evacuating Oregon, a number representing roughly 10% of the state’s overall population.
Roughly 100 massive fires are blazing Saturday in the West, including 12 in Idaho and nine in Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday. All told, the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states.
Are leftist policies to blame for the severity of wildfires in the West? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 99% (350 Votes) 1% (3 Votes)
Shortly before leaving office, Clinton introduced the Roadless Rule that restricted the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest, making it difficult for officials to scan the land for the kind of kindling that fuels massive conflagrations.
The move was part of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), a resolution adopted by Clinton in 1994 to protect forests from being over-logged.
Ten years before Clinton’s rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species Act, forcing the Forest Service to adopt a new policy that resulted in a greater reduction in timber harvests. The amount of timber removed from federal lands plummeted, according to data accumulated in 2015 by the Reason Foundation.
An average of 10 million feet of timber was removed each year from Forest Service land between 1960 and 1990, the data show. Those numbers dropped between 1991 and 2000 and continued dropping — an average of only 2.1 billion feet of timber was removed from the land between 2000 and 2013, according to the data. That’s an 80% decline.
“They’ve gone and left hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt timber, a fire bomb waiting to happen, standing in place because the black back woodpecker prefers that habitat,” Zybach said. “It’s great for lawyers, but it’s bad for people who breathe air or work in the woods.”
“The prescribed burns are an ancient form of management for keeping the fuels down so these events don’t happen,” Zybach added, referring to Native American Indians who used controlled burns to ward away pests and prevent wildfires from licking their homes.
The Clinton administration’s plan to turn forests in the West into pristine land free of human interference risked fueling “wildfires reminiscent of the Tillamook burn, the 1910 fires and the Yellowstone fire,” Zybach, who is based in Oregon, told Evergreen magazine in 1994, when the NWFP came into effect. Western Oregon had one major fire above 10,000 acres between 1952 and 1987, reports show. The Silver Complex Fire of 1987 snapped that streak after torching more than 100,000 acres in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, killing rare plants and trees the federal government sought to protect from human activities. Fire Experts Agree: Prescribed Burns Are Critical
Overzealous fire suppression across California are helping to build up wildland fuels, which contribute to wildfires, according to Tim Ingalsbee, a fire ecologist who began a career in the 1980s as a wildland firefighter. The solution is “to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load,” he told ProPublica in August.
“It’s just … well … it’s horrible. Horrible to see this happening when the science is so clear and has been clear for years. I suffer from Cassandra syndrome,” Ingalsbee said, referring to the Cassandra Syndrome, a Greek metaphor people use when they believe their valid warnings are not heeded.
“Every year I warn people: Disaster’s coming. We got to change. And no one listens. And then it happens.”
Other experts have made similar arguments in the past.
Overgrown grasslands, forests, and woodlands contributed to California wildfires in 2017, Sasha Berleman, a fire ecologist, told High Country News that year. “I’m more certain than ever that there’s a lot we can do between now and the next time this happens to make it so that the negative consequences to people are nowhere near as dramatic,” she said.
The devastating fires that ran through California’s wine country in October of 2017 killed 42 people and destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings, High Country News noted.
The solution might be easier said than done. Nearly 20 million acres in California, or an area about the size of Maine, will need to experience controlled burns to limit catastrophic wildfires, a January study from Nature Sustainability found.
Blaming Climate Change
Former President Barack Obama suggested in a tweet Thursday that California’s wildfires are a result of climate change.
“The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities,” Obama wrote in a tweet that included pictures showing how soot and ash from the wildfires are turning San Francisco’s sky bright orange.
Obama isn’t the only prominent Democrat tying the fires to global warming.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, published a tweet Saturday that read: “The proof of the urgency of the climate crisis is literally in the air around us.” Schumer included a link to a Sept. 10 article from CBS blaming climate change for the fires.
Zybach is not convinced. “The lack of active land management is almost 100 percent the cause,” he told the DCNF, noting that climate change has almost nothing to do with fire kindling gathering across the forest floors. Other researchers share his skepticism.
“Global warming may contribute slightly, but the key factors are mismanaged forests, years of fire suppression, increased population, people living where they should not, invasive flammable species, and the fact that California has always had fire,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told TheDCNF in 2018.
Mass’s critique came as Mendocino Complex Fire was spreading across California on its way to becoming the largest wildfire in the state, engulfing more than 283,000 acres.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-09-14--Trump's drug plans 'will empower consumers'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Health . ]
Now that the conventions are over , it ’ s time for policymakers to get back to the people ’ s work .
One of their first tasks should be to examine the impact of President Donald Trump ’ s drug-related Executive Orders on vaccine innovation , development , and access .
By signing Executive Orders to lower drug prices and authorize personal importation waivers for certain medicines , Trump eliminated secrecy between pharmacies , drug companies , and their middlemen , Pharmacy Benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand massive rebates from drug manufacturers , resulting in increased consumer costs at the counter .
Trump ’ s transparency measure will empower consumers to know what they are really paying and incentivize the industry to slash prices as competition increases .
However , Trump also pegged drug prices to those of other nations in an EO with a delayed implementation – until today .
While pegging prices appears to be a good move politically and was clearly meant as a negotiating technique with the drug industry , a February 2018 report from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) lays out how price controls like the ones in the Executive Order hurt healthcare innovation .
For example , expensive research & development isn ’ t paid for by other nations , but by U.S. consumers .
The CEA report also noted that 70 percent of patented pharmaceutical profits in the OECD come from U.S. sales -- not nations with price controls .
Lowering drug prices through market forces like transparency and consumer knowledge are critical to keeping drugs affordable without sacrificing innovation .
But a 2004 MIT study cited by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like price controls significantly reduce drug innovation and production .
Further research from the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution found price controls interfere with investments in new cures and treatments , reduce research and development , and result in fewer prescription drugs that are less available .
This research is backed by real-world examples .
The Boston Consulting Group found that when Greece , Belgium , and France each imposed market interventions to control pharmaceutical spending , getting drugs to consumers can take anywhere from nine to 12 months longer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producing high-quality drugs because the private sector is empowered to research new ideas while the government functions in its proper role as an overseer .
American innovation has resulted in more drugs overall for decades .
According to a 2011 Milken Institute report , between 2001 and 2010 , the U.S. produced 57 % of the world ’ s new medicines .
Revolutionary treatment drugs like Epclusa for hepatitis C show what advancements can be made when ingenuity is not impeded .
Without profits , life-saving drugs will be few and far between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat the coronavirus .
Just as the Nixonian gas price controls produced gasoline shortages and rationing , government rationing and reduced patient access may also become realities when the vaccines are approved for patient use .
Trump ’ s price controls directly undermine what has made the American healthcare system so innovative even as his transparency EO puts the government in its proper role .
The U.S. can not afford to sacrifice medical breakthroughs and stifle private research incentives to help recover from the COVID-19 crisis .
We must have quality testing kits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovations as needed .
Providers are already on the front lines and doing their best ; price controls will force unnecessary constraints during the pandemic .
The federal government and the private sector must fulfill their respective roles without abusing consumers through overreach and secrecy .
Trump should follow his instincts on innovation and transparency , and ditch the price controls .
Dr. Gianoli is a neuro-otologist at the Ear and Balance Institute and a clinical associate professor at Tulane University School of Medicine .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Health.]
By Dr. Gerard Gianoli
Real Clear Health
Now that the conventions are over, it’s time for policymakers to get back to the people’s work. One of their first tasks should be to examine the impact of President Donald Trump’s drug-related Executive Orders on vaccine innovation, development, and access.
By signing Executive Orders to lower drug prices and authorize personal importation waivers for certain medicines , Trump eliminated secrecy between pharmacies, drug companies, and their middlemen, Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM). PBMs frequently demand massive rebates from drug manufacturers, resulting in increased consumer costs at the counter. Trump’s transparency measure will empower consumers to know what they are really paying and incentivize the industry to slash prices as competition increases.
However, Trump also pegged drug prices to those of other nations in an EO with a delayed implementation – until today. While pegging prices appears to be a good move politically and was clearly meant as a negotiating technique with the drug industry, a February 2018 report from his Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) lays out how price controls like the ones in the Executive Order hurt healthcare innovation. For example, expensive research & development isn’t paid for by other nations, but by U.S. consumers. The CEA report also noted that 70 percent of patented pharmaceutical profits in the OECD come from U.S. sales -- not nations with price controls.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Lowering drug prices through market forces like transparency and consumer knowledge are critical to keeping drugs affordable without sacrificing innovation. But a 2004 MIT study cited by Trump’s CEA discovered that government interventions like price controls significantly reduce drug innovation and production. Further research from the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution found price controls interfere with investments in new cures and treatments, reduce research and development, and result in fewer prescription drugs that are less available.
This research is backed by real-world examples. The Boston Consulting Group found that when Greece, Belgium, and France each imposed market interventions to control pharmaceutical spending, getting drugs to consumers can take anywhere from nine to 12 months longer than necessary. The U.S. is faster at producing high-quality drugs because the private sector is empowered to research new ideas while the government functions in its proper role as an overseer.
American innovation has resulted in more drugs overall for decades. According to a 2011 Milken Institute report, between 2001 and 2010, the U.S. produced 57% of the world’s new medicines. Revolutionary treatment drugs like Epclusa for hepatitis C show what advancements can be made when ingenuity is not impeded. Without profits, life-saving drugs will be few and far between -- including vaccines which are needed to combat the coronavirus. Just as the Nixonian gas price controls produced gasoline shortages and rationing, government rationing and reduced patient access may also become realities when the vaccines are approved for patient use.
Trump’s price controls directly undermine what has made the American healthcare system so innovative even as his transparency EO puts the government in its proper role. The U.S. cannot afford to sacrifice medical breakthroughs and stifle private research incentives to help recover from the COVID-19 crisis. We must have quality testing kits, vaccines, and other COVID-19 related innovations as needed. Providers are already on the front lines and doing their best; price controls will force unnecessary constraints during the pandemic.
The federal government and the private sector must fulfill their respective roles without abusing consumers through overreach and secrecy. Trump should follow his instincts on innovation and transparency, and ditch the price controls.
Dr. Gianoli is a neuro-otologist at the Ear and Balance Institute and a clinical associate professor at Tulane University School of Medicine.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Health.]


wnd--2020-09-14--China ditches U.S. nuclear tech in favor of home-grown alternative

( SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST ) -- China has switched from American nuclear power technology to a domestically developed alternative @ @ @ @ @ and geopolitical uncertainties increase .
The AP1000 technology , designed by America ’ s Westinghouse @ @ @ @ @ the basis of China ’ s third-generation nuclear power , but now the country has @ @ @ @ @ its own Hualong One technology under construction or approved , than it does AP1000 reactors @ @ @ @ @ nuclear reactors in China – either under construction or going through the approval process – @ @ @ @ @ In contrast , no new AP1000 reactors have been approved for more than a decade @ @ @ @ @ – in Zhejiang and Shandong provinces – went into commercial operation in 2018 .

(SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST) -- China has switched from American nuclear power technology to a domestically developed alternative as worries over energy security and geopolitical uncertainties increase.
The AP1000 technology, designed by America’s Westinghouse Electric Company, was once the basis of China’s third-generation nuclear power, but now the country has more third-generation reactors based on its own Hualong One technology under construction or approved, than it does AP1000 reactors.
A total of 12 nuclear reactors in China – either under construction or going through the approval process – use Hualong One technology. In contrast, no new AP1000 reactors have been approved for more than a decade. The last US reactors – in Zhejiang and Shandong provinces – went into commercial operation in 2018.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-14--'Reliable' Steele acted 'crazy,' FBI handler charges

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]
“ Crazy ” was the term the FBI agent used to describe the behavior of Christopher Steele , author of the now-debunked Trump-Russia dossier .
“ I 've seen crazy source-related stuff in 20 years in New York and this was one of the craziest , '' the veteran agent testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence .
Nevertheless , the FBI continued to rely on Steele ’ s allegations – that Donald Trump and his team were conspiring with Russians who possessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Trump campaign .
Without evidence to verify Steele ’ s claims , the FBI fell back on its assertion that the former British intelligence agent was reliable .
The previously unreported testimony of FBI agent Michael Gaeta is found on page 900 of the fifth and final volume of the Senate committee ’ s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election .
It raises new questions about the basis of the FBI ’ s investigation of the Trump campaign , Crossfire Hurricane , and the declarations it made to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spy on American citizens .
Gaeta had a long history with the London-based Steele , who had started his own firm , Orbis Business Intelligence , after leaving the British spy service MI6 in 2009 .
Between 2013 and 2016 , the bureau had paid Steele $ 95,000 to pass along tidbits on Eurasian organized crime ; Gaeta was his contact at the bureau .
It was Gaeta whom Steele approached in July 2016 with wild and depraved stories of collusion and kompromat .
Gaeta became the “ handling agent ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among his tasks was to get Steele paid ( a process that came along slowly ) and to see to it that Steele didn ’ t violate the FBI ’ s rules on confidentiality .
This requirement for discretion created a conflict of interest for Steele , who was also being paid for the same information by the Washington-based firm Fusion GPS .
Fusion , in turn was being paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for opposition research on Trump .
The Democrats wanted Steele ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also wanted to be able to claim that the FBI was investigating the allegations .
Paid FBI informants , however , are not allowed to tell anyone of their work for the FBI or of the bureau ’ s investigations .
Gaeta was astonished , then , when shortly before the 2016 election an article appeared in Mother Jones titled “ A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.
” The sub-headline asked , “ Has the bureau investigated this material ?
” Gaeta was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article and confronted him about it .
Steele readily admitted he was behind the Mother Jones story .
The conversation that followed and its aftermath have been described before , but in bloodless ways that fail to capture the importance of that confrontation in determining Steele ’ s reliability and credibility .
For example , a Justice Department inspector general report says “ Handling Agent 1 advised Steele that he must cease collecting information for the FBI , and it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with him.
” 'Listen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' Here ’ s how Gaeta recounted that conversation to the Senate : `` Listen , is it about the money ? ''
Gaeta asked Steele .
`` Because we have the money now .
Is it about the money ? ''
The FBI had promised , but had yet to deliver to Steele , $ 15,000 for one meeting with Crossfire Hurricane agents .
The bureau had further promised Steele he would be paid “ significantly ” for his Trump-Russia research .
Gaeta assumed at first a delay in payment had made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm owed the money , but that 's secondary , '' Steele told Gaeta .
`` I 'm very upset about – we ’ re very upset – about the actions of your agency . ''
By the “ we ” in “ we ’ re very upset ” one can reasonably infer that Steele was speaking about himself and his client , Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson ( whose client , not counting cutouts , was Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign ) .
The handling agent was shocked : “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about.
” Before Gaeta could inquire further , Steele started railing about `` your Director ” and his `` reopening of the investigation.
” This was an apparent reference to former FBI Director James Comey ’ s decision to reopen the probe into Hillary Clinton ’ s private email server after 340,000 copies of State Department emails between Clinton and her close personal aide , Huma Abedin , were discovered on a laptop used by Abedin and her husband , Anthony Weiner .
He was a disgraced congressman under investigation by the bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sexually explicit messages and photos to an underage girl .
At which point it all became clear to the handling agent : “ I 'm now understanding that he did this because he was upset that the Director 's reopening of the investigation was going to negatively affect the election for Hillary Clinton.
” The handling agent described his reaction to Steele ’ s behavior as “ surprise and disbelief.
” Gaeta told the Senate that Steele ’ s actions and attitude weren ’ t just “ crazy source-related stuff , ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veteran agent had seen in two decades of handling sources .
The words are significant : Steele ’ s behavior with the FBI has been characterized as a sort of professional disagreement , uncomfortable perhaps but not unreasonable .
Gaeta ’ s blunt assessment casts things in a much harsher light and undercuts subsequent efforts by the FBI ’ s top officials to rehabilitate Steele in order to justify using his “ reporting.
” Although it has been downplayed until now , Steele ’ s acting out – and his overtly declared partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureau , so much so that the handling agent describes it in violent terms : `` After that point – after everybody digests what happened , ” Gaeta told the Senate committee , “ [ p ] hones were ringing at that point ; people 's ears were bleeding.
” Whose ears would those have been ?
Gaeta ’ s first call likely would have gone to Bill Priestap , assistant director of the FBI ’ s Counterintelligence Division .
He had just been made Gaeta ’ s point of contact at FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to close him , ” Gaeta told the Senate .
“ At that point it 's just obvious .
That 's all you could do . ''
The “ management ” was Priestap , according to Inspector General Michael Horowitz .
“ Priestap decided that Steele had to be closed immediately.
” Gaeta drew up the paperwork and Steele was removed from the list of official bureau sources on Nov. 17 , 2016 .
In the wake of Donald Trump ’ s election , President Obama ordered a multi-agency “ Intelligence Community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential campaign .
James Comey , the director whose actions had prompted Steele to go outside the bureau in the first place , now pushed for Steele ’ s “ reporting ” to be included in the document , even though none of it had been corroborated .
Comey called Director of National Intelligence James Clapper .
“ I informed the DNI that we would be contributing the [ Steele ] reporting ( although I did n't use that name ) to the IC [ Intelligence Community ] effort , ” Comey reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next day .
“ I told him the source of the material , which included salacious material about the President-Elect , was a former [ REDACTED ] who appears to be a credible person.
” First in the list of recipients of Comey ’ s email was Priestap .
Priestap would have known from Gaeta that Steele ’ s behavior was among the “ craziest ” the handling agent had run into in two decades of source work .
He would have known also that , by his own admission , Steele @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton ’ s campaign apparently by sabotaging Trump ’ s .
Yet Priestap went along with Comey ’ s presentation of Steele as a credible source .
More than that , Priestap promoted the idea of including Steele ’ s allegations in the intelligence assessment , himself writing to the CIA and describing the former British spy as “ reliable.
” Finally , Priestap vouched for Steele ’ s reliability even though he later admitted to the Justice Department inspector general that he “ understood that the information [ from Steele ] could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of a disinformation campaign.
” But that ’ s not how Steele ’ s materials were presented to the secret FISA court .
Shortly after the election , Priestap went with FBI agent Peter Strzok to London to see if they could rehabilitate Steele ’ s credibility by gathering the opinions of “ persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele.
” They found some who described Steele as “ smart ” and a “ person of integrity ” But several lamented Steele ’ s “ poor judgment ” or “ lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pursuing people [ with ] political risk but no intel value.
” But because Priestap and Strzok did not find any former colleagues to say Steele made things up out of whole cloth , the Crossfire Hurricane team declared him to be credible for the purpose of justifying surveillance warrants .
The willingness of the assistant director for counterintelligence to misrepresent essential information is important because it was Priestap who was responsible for the official launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in the first place .
Gaeta explained to senators just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ close ” a source : `` Once he 's closed , nobody is allowed – we ca n't talk to him.
” In this case , that practice was not followed .
Priestap ’ s apparent rationale was that the decision to close Steele as a source was not made because he offered unfounded claims but because he had violated confidentiality agreements by sharing them with the press .
And so , the FBI continued to gather new “ reporting ” by Steele .
One of channels was David Corn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article about Steele ’ s accusations .
Corn was a longtime friend of then-FBI General Counsel James Baker .
Their children had gone to the same school years before and carpooled .
Corn gave Steele memos to Baker and then Baker passed them on to Priestap .
Thus the strange situation in which an assistant director of the FBI forbade agents from talking to Steele because of the source ’ s indiscretion with Mother Jones and then proceeded to gather Steele materials through a back-channel relationship with Mother Jones .
Strange , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]
By Eric Felten
Real Clear Investigations
“Crazy” was the term the FBI agent used to describe the behavior of Christopher Steele, author of the now-debunked Trump-Russia dossier. “I've seen crazy source-related stuff in 20 years in New York and this was one of the craziest," the veteran agent testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Nevertheless, the FBI continued to rely on Steele’s allegations – that Donald Trump and his team were conspiring with Russians who possessed compromising information – to justify its surveillance of the Trump campaign. Without evidence to verify Steele’s claims, the FBI fell back on its assertion that the former British intelligence agent was reliable.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The previously unreported testimony of FBI agent Michael Gaeta is found on page 900 of the fifth and final volume of the Senate committee’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. It raises new questions about the basis of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign, Crossfire Hurricane, and the declarations it made to the FISA court in four separate applications submitted to spy on American citizens.
Gaeta had a long history with the London-based Steele, who had started his own firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, after leaving the British spy service MI6 in 2009. Between 2013 and 2016, the bureau had paid Steele $95,000 to pass along tidbits on Eurasian organized crime; Gaeta was his contact at the bureau. It was Gaeta whom Steele approached in July 2016 with wild and depraved stories of collusion and kompromat. Gaeta became the “handling agent” for Steele’s participation in Crossfire Hurricane. Among his tasks was to get Steele paid (a process that came along slowly) and to see to it that Steele didn’t violate the FBI’s rules on confidentiality.
This requirement for discretion created a conflict of interest for Steele, who was also being paid for the same information by the Washington-based firm Fusion GPS. Fusion, in turn was being paid by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for opposition research on Trump. The Democrats wanted Steele’s information spread far and wide. They also wanted to be able to claim that the FBI was investigating the allegations. Paid FBI informants, however, are not allowed to tell anyone of their work for the FBI or of the bureau’s investigations.
Gaeta was astonished, then, when shortly before the 2016 election an article appeared in Mother Jones titled “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” The sub-headline asked, “Has the bureau investigated this material?” Gaeta was convinced Steele was the source for the article and confronted him about it. Steele readily admitted he was behind the Mother Jones story.
The conversation that followed and its aftermath have been described before, but in bloodless ways that fail to capture the importance of that confrontation in determining Steele’s reliability and credibility. For example, a Justice Department inspector general report says “Handling Agent 1 advised Steele that he must cease collecting information for the FBI, and it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with him.”
'Listen, Is It About the Money?'
Here’s how Gaeta recounted that conversation to the Senate: "Listen, is it about the money?" Gaeta asked Steele. "Because we have the money now. Is it about the money?" The FBI had promised, but had yet to deliver to Steele, $15,000 for one meeting with Crossfire Hurricane agents. The bureau had further promised Steele he would be paid “significantly” for his Trump-Russia research.
Gaeta assumed at first a delay in payment had made Steele go rogue.
“Yes, I'm owed the money, but that's secondary," Steele told Gaeta. "I'm very upset about – we’re very upset – about the actions of your agency." By the “we” in “we’re very upset” one can reasonably infer that Steele was speaking about himself and his client, Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson (whose client, not counting cutouts, was Hillary Clinton’s campaign).
The handling agent was shocked: “I had no idea what he was talking about.” Before Gaeta could inquire further, Steele started railing about ''your Director” and his "reopening of the investigation.” This was an apparent reference to former FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server after 340,000 copies of State Department emails between Clinton and her close personal aide, Huma Abedin, were discovered on a laptop used by Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner. He was a disgraced congressman under investigation by the bureau’s New York office for sending sexually explicit messages and photos to an underage girl.
At which point it all became clear to the handling agent: “I'm now understanding that he did this because he was upset that the Director's reopening of the investigation was going to negatively affect the election for Hillary Clinton.”
The handling agent described his reaction to Steele’s behavior as “surprise and disbelief.” Gaeta told the Senate that Steele’s actions and attitude weren’t just “crazy source-related stuff,” but “one of the craziest” the veteran agent had seen in two decades of handling sources. The words are significant: Steele’s behavior with the FBI has been characterized as a sort of professional disagreement, uncomfortable perhaps but not unreasonable. Gaeta’s blunt assessment casts things in a much harsher light and undercuts subsequent efforts by the FBI’s top officials to rehabilitate Steele in order to justify using his “reporting.”
Although it has been downplayed until now, Steele’s acting out – and his overtly declared partisan motivations -- constituted a crisis for the bureau, so much so that the handling agent describes it in violent terms: "After that point – after everybody digests what happened,” Gaeta told the Senate committee, “[p]hones were ringing at that point; people's ears were bleeding.”
Whose ears would those have been? Gaeta’s first call likely would have gone to Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. He had just been made Gaeta’s point of contact at FBI headquarters.
“Management said we were going to close him,” Gaeta told the Senate. “At that point it's just obvious. That's all you could do." The “management” was Priestap, according to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. “Priestap decided that Steele had to be closed immediately.” Gaeta drew up the paperwork and Steele was removed from the list of official bureau sources on Nov. 17, 2016.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, President Obama ordered a multi-agency “Intelligence Community Assessment” of Russian interference in the presidential campaign. James Comey, the director whose actions had prompted Steele to go outside the bureau in the first place, now pushed for Steele’s “reporting” to be included in the document, even though none of it had been corroborated. Comey called Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. “I informed the DNI that we would be contributing the [Steele] reporting (although I didn't use that name) to the IC [Intelligence Community] effort,” Comey reported in an email to his top deputies the next day. “I told him the source of the material, which included salacious material about the President-Elect, was a former [REDACTED] who appears to be a credible person.”
First in the list of recipients of Comey’s email was Priestap.
Priestap would have known from Gaeta that Steele’s behavior was among the “craziest” the handling agent had run into in two decades of source work. He would have known also that, by his own admission, Steele’s motivations were to promote Hillary Clinton’s campaign apparently by sabotaging Trump’s. Yet Priestap went along with Comey’s presentation of Steele as a credible source. More than that, Priestap promoted the idea of including Steele’s allegations in the intelligence assessment, himself writing to the CIA and describing the former British spy as “reliable.”
Finally, Priestap vouched for Steele’s reliability even though he later admitted to the Justice Department inspector general that he “understood that the information [from Steele] could have been provided by the Russians as part of a disinformation campaign.”
Steele Cast as 'Person of Integrity'
But that’s not how Steele’s materials were presented to the secret FISA court. Shortly after the election, Priestap went with FBI agent Peter Strzok to London to see if they could rehabilitate Steele’s credibility by gathering the opinions of “persons who previously had professional contacts with Steele.” They found some who described Steele as “smart” and a “person of integrity” But several lamented Steele’s “poor judgment” or “lack of judgment” and his habit of “pursuing people [with] political risk but no intel value.” But because Priestap and Strzok did not find any former colleagues to say Steele made things up out of whole cloth, the Crossfire Hurricane team declared him to be credible for the purpose of justifying surveillance warrants.
The willingness of the assistant director for counterintelligence to misrepresent essential information is important because it was Priestap who was responsible for the official launch of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation in the first place.
Gaeta explained to senators just how serious and irrevocable a break it was to “close” a source: ''Once he's closed, nobody is allowed – we can't talk to him.”
In this case, that practice was not followed. Priestap’s apparent rationale was that the decision to close Steele as a source was not made because he offered unfounded claims but because he had violated confidentiality agreements by sharing them with the press. And so, the FBI continued to gather new “reporting” by Steele. One of channels was David Corn, the Mother Jones reporter who had written the article about Steele’s accusations. Corn was a longtime friend of then-FBI General Counsel James Baker. Their children had gone to the same school years before and carpooled. Corn gave Steele memos to Baker and then Baker passed them on to Priestap. Thus the strange situation in which an assistant director of the FBI forbade agents from talking to Steele because of the source’s indiscretion with Mother Jones and then proceeded to gather Steele materials through a back-channel relationship with Mother Jones.
Strange, yes, perhaps even crazy.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]


wnd--2020-09-13--About those 20,000 supposedly 'false' claims by President Trump ...

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
There are now 21 on-the-record denials rebutting The Atlantic ’ s bombshell alleging President Trump called American soldiers “ losers ” and “ suckers.
” Ignoring the most problematic aspect of Atlantic Editor Jeffrey Goldberg ’ s report – his sources were all anonymous -- many journalists saw this story as the perfect opportunity to wager the institutional media ’ s credibility against that of the president , who to be charitable , has a strained relationship with the truth .
Brian Stelter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism show , “ Reliable Sources , ” began Sunday ’ s episode with a monologue lamenting the fact that many news outlets even bothered to report Trump ’ s vehement denials of The Atlantic story .
“ Why confer credibility where it doesn ’ t belong ?
Fool me once , shame on you .
Fool me 20,000 times , well , shame on all of us , ” he said .
“ Why keep acting like things are normal after 20,000 false and misleading claims ? ''
Indeed , per The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has told 20,000 “ false and misleading ” claims through July 9 of this year – an astonishing average of nearly 16 false or misleading statements a day .
Framed in those terms , Stelter has a point .
Choosing between the credibility of Trump or , say , a CNN host , the editor of a prestige magazine such as The Atlantic , let alone a Washington Post fact-checker , is no choice at all .
The problem is that any cursory inspection of the Post database reveals that the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading ” statements is itself false and misleading .
Vast quantities of the 20,000 are redundancies – statements , however tendentious , that Trump has repeated ad nauseum .
More problematic is that thousands of statements The Washington Post labels as untrue or misleading are more properly considered the habitual verbal excess for a man known for his immoderate form of communication .
Further , a great many of the Post ’ s objections to Trump ’ s statements amount to argumentative quibbles that aren ’ t really “ fact checks.
” Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s most oft-repeated “ lies , ” according to Washington Post fact checkers : “ My job was made harder by phony witch hunts , by ‘ Russia , Russia , Russia ’ nonsense.
” The Post dings Trump for some variation of this claim 227 times – more than 1 % of Trump ’ s alleged untruths .
Yet , the Post ’ s justification for why Trump is wrong to say this is pure pettifogging .
Much of it essentially consists of a defense of the probe conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the most tangible results from the Mueller investigation – criminal charges for Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort for unrelated work in Ukraine and fecklessly charging ( and then quietly dropping the charges ) against a bunch of Russian nationals for hacking and other dirty computer tricks – don ’ t come close to proving Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election .
In that respect , the Post fact checker flirts with dishonesty in the way it omits salient facts .
“ Mueller declined to reach a decision on whether to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… Mueller spent nearly half of the report laying out a sustained effort by Trump to derail the investigation , including an effort by the president to have Mueller removed , ” notes the Post .
It ’ s telling the Post is dredging up the obstruction allegations .
Trump supporters would frame what happened this way : The Mueller investigation started with no real evidence that Trump colluded with Russia , uncovered no new evidence , and when investigators realized they had nothing , pivoted to making a politicized case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t exist .
Meanwhile , a top FBI lawyer just pleaded guilty to lying on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants .
If the FBI lied to get warrants to spy on Trump associates , that seems pretty close to “ phony witch hunt.
” Suffice it to say , you will find numerous other Trump-Russia “ fact checks ” in the bowels of the Post database that fail to acknowledge there was major malfeasance in the FBI investigation , and there are reasons to believe the highest levels of the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and politicized investigation into Trump – reasons the fact checker credulously dismisses .
Setting aside 2016 , the Post fact checker is also wading into the current election .
How the Post justifies calling this statement misleading is a head-scratcher : “ We need security , we ca n't defund our police and we ca n't abolish the police .
They want to abolish our police.
” ( Again , the Post ’ s 20,000 total falsehoods registers Trump saying some variation of this eight different times . )
According to the Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not support ‘ defunding police , ’ according to the candidate and the campaign.
” However , the context of the Sean Hannity interview in which Trump makes the statement in no way suggests Trump is directly referring to Biden .
“ They ” seems to mean the Democratic Party or the left more generally .
In addition , Biden has also said he ’ s “ absolutely ” in favor of redirecting funds from the police – which is the definition many “ defund the police ” supporters are using .
Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent Democrats and progressive activists have come out in favor of “ defunding the police , ” whatever that loaded phrase is supposed to mean .
A New York Times article last month , headlined “ Biden Said , ‘ Most Cops Are Good.
’ But Progressives Want Systemic Change , ” testifies to the fact this is a significant intraparty tension .
( See also this other Times op-ed from a progressive activist , “ Yes , We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.
” ) Maybe you believe Biden , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a primary with socialist Bernie Sanders , can hold the line on defunding the police against many of his own supporters .
But the Post has no business disputing Trump here .
It looks as if the Post is moving the goalposts to give Biden cover on an issue hurting him at the polls .
Other allegedly misleading claims are simply insulting to readers , such as this one Trump ’ s been rung up for eight times : “ We have tremendous African American support.
” Trump exceeded expectations with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
Regardless , is he supposed to call his own supporters lackluster ?
If this statement is “ false or misleading , ” what level of wishful political rhetoric is acceptable ?
So far , all of the examples from the Post fact checker I ’ ve cited are from the first page of its database .
But that ’ s the particular genius of what the Post has done – transformed thousands of nits it would like to pick into a cudgel of a talking point to be used against Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comb through such an exhaustive and tedious list .
I ’ ve spent the better part of a decade offering occasionally exhaustive analyses of why the entire media fact-checking enterprise is flawed , never mind the outrageous political double standards fact checkers employed in the Obama years .
However , I ’ ve also long said that if you must rely on a fact checker – and I don ’ t recommend it – The Washington Post is the best of the bunch .
The Post fact-checking operation is more transparent and less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checker Glenn Kessler is responsive to complaints and is certainly capable of doing excellent journalism – see his recent deep dive into a GOP Senate candidate ’ s claims about his charitable work .
Had Post fact checkers been more discerning , they could have nailed Trump on a much smaller , but still impressive number of claims that would be difficult to dispute .
Instead , they buffaloed the public with the dubious claim Trump has made an astounding 20,000 false or misleading statements .
The worry is now that the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era will endure long after Trump leaves office .
In the meantime , there ’ s an election in two months , and voters who are asked to choose between the media ’ s credibility and Trump ’ s are frantically looking to see what ’ s behind door No .
3 .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Mark Hemingway
Real Clear Politics
There are now 21 on-the-record denials rebutting The Atlantic’s bombshell alleging President Trump called American soldiers “losers” and “suckers.” Ignoring the most problematic aspect of Atlantic Editor Jeffrey Goldberg’s report – his sources were all anonymous -- many journalists saw this story as the perfect opportunity to wager the institutional media’s credibility against that of the president, who to be charitable, has a strained relationship with the truth.
Brian Stelter, the host of CNN’s media criticism show, “Reliable Sources,” began Sunday’s episode with a monologue lamenting the fact that many news outlets even bothered to report Trump’s vehement denials of The Atlantic story. “Why confer credibility where it doesn’t belong? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 20,000 times, well, shame on all of us,” he said. “Why keep acting like things are normal after 20,000 false and misleading claims?"
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Indeed, per The Washington Post fact-checker database, President Trump has told 20,000 “false and misleading” claims through July 9 of this year – an astonishing average of nearly 16 false or misleading statements a day. Framed in those terms, Stelter has a point. Choosing between the credibility of Trump or, say, a CNN host, the editor of a prestige magazine such as The Atlantic, let alone a Washington Post fact-checker, is no choice at all.
The problem is that any cursory inspection of the Post database reveals that the idea that Trump has told 20,000 “false or misleading” statements is itself false and misleading. Vast quantities of the 20,000 are redundancies – statements, however tendentious, that Trump has repeated ad nauseum. More problematic is that thousands of statements The Washington Post labels as untrue or misleading are more properly considered the habitual verbal excess for a man known for his immoderate form of communication. Further, a great many of the Post’s objections to Trump’s statements amount to argumentative quibbles that aren’t really “fact checks.”
Just to start, here’s one of Trump’s most oft-repeated “lies,” according to Washington Post fact checkers: “My job was made harder by phony witch hunts, by ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ nonsense.” The Post dings Trump for some variation of this claim 227 times – more than 1% of Trump’s alleged untruths. Yet, the Post’s justification for why Trump is wrong to say this is pure pettifogging.
Much of it essentially consists of a defense of the probe conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller. However, the most tangible results from the Mueller investigation – criminal charges for Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort for unrelated work in Ukraine and fecklessly charging (and then quietly dropping the charges) against a bunch of Russian nationals for hacking and other dirty computer tricks – don’t come close to proving Trump colluded with Russia to steal an election.
In that respect, the Post fact checker flirts with dishonesty in the way it omits salient facts. “Mueller declined to reach a decision on whether to bring charges against Trump for obstructing justice. … Mueller spent nearly half of the report laying out a sustained effort by Trump to derail the investigation, including an effort by the president to have Mueller removed,” notes the Post.
It’s telling the Post is dredging up the obstruction allegations. Trump supporters would frame what happened this way: The Mueller investigation started with no real evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, uncovered no new evidence, and when investigators realized they had nothing, pivoted to making a politicized case for obstruction while investigating a crime they knew didn’t exist. Meanwhile, a top FBI lawyer just pleaded guilty to lying on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants. If the FBI lied to get warrants to spy on Trump associates, that seems pretty close to “phony witch hunt.”
Suffice it to say, you will find numerous other Trump-Russia “fact checks” in the bowels of the Post database that fail to acknowledge there was major malfeasance in the FBI investigation, and there are reasons to believe the highest levels of the Obama administration knew about and enabled an improper and politicized investigation into Trump – reasons the fact checker credulously dismisses.
Setting aside 2016, the Post fact checker is also wading into the current election. How the Post justifies calling this statement misleading is a head-scratcher: “We need security, we can't defund our police and we can't abolish the police. They want to abolish our police.” (Again, the Post’s 20,000 total falsehoods registers Trump saying some variation of this eight different times.)
According to the Post this is false because “Biden does not support ‘defunding police,’ according to the candidate and the campaign.” However, the context of the Sean Hannity interview in which Trump makes the statement in no way suggests Trump is directly referring to Biden. “They” seems to mean the Democratic Party or the left more generally.
In addition, Biden has also said he’s “absolutely” in favor of redirecting funds from the police – which is the definition many “defund the police” supporters are using. Regardless, it’s true that numerous prominent Democrats and progressive activists have come out in favor of “defunding the police,” whatever that loaded phrase is supposed to mean. A New York Times article last month, headlined “Biden Said, ‘Most Cops Are Good.’ But Progressives Want Systemic Change,” testifies to the fact this is a significant intraparty tension. (See also this other Times op-ed from a progressive activist, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.”)
Maybe you believe Biden, who has drifted left on numerous significant policy questions after a primary with socialist Bernie Sanders, can hold the line on defunding the police against many of his own supporters. But the Post has no business disputing Trump here. It looks as if the Post is moving the goalposts to give Biden cover on an issue hurting him at the polls.
Other allegedly misleading claims are simply insulting to readers, such as this one Trump’s been rung up for eight times: “We have tremendous African American support.” Trump exceeded expectations with his share of the African American vote in 2016. Regardless, is he supposed to call his own supporters lackluster? If this statement is “false or misleading,” what level of wishful political rhetoric is acceptable?
So far, all of the examples from the Post fact checker I’ve cited are from the first page of its database. But that’s the particular genius of what the Post has done – transformed thousands of nits it would like to pick into a cudgel of a talking point to be used against Trump, knowing no one is going to comb through such an exhaustive and tedious list.
I’ve spent the better part of a decade offering occasionally exhaustive analyses of why the entire media fact-checking enterprise is flawed, never mind the outrageous political double standards fact checkers employed in the Obama years.
However, I’ve also long said that if you must rely on a fact checker – and I don’t recommend it – The Washington Post is the best of the bunch. The Post fact-checking operation is more transparent and less biased than others, and head fact checker Glenn Kessler is responsive to complaints and is certainly capable of doing excellent journalism – see his recent deep dive into a GOP Senate candidate’s claims about his charitable work.
Had Post fact checkers been more discerning, they could have nailed Trump on a much smaller, but still impressive number of claims that would be difficult to dispute. Instead, they buffaloed the public with the dubious claim Trump has made an astounding 20,000 false or misleading statements. The worry is now that the media’s habitual overreach in the Trump era will endure long after Trump leaves office. In the meantime, there’s an election in two months, and voters who are asked to choose between the media’s credibility and Trump’s are frantically looking to see what’s behind door No. 3.


wnd--2020-09-13--College president sorry for crime alert which had 'black' in suspect description

( THE COLLEGE FIX ) -- About a week after Ohio State faced a 100-person-strong protest for a campus crime @ @ @ @ @ as “ black , ” the president of the University of Louisville is apologizing for @ @ @ @ @ Louisville Courier-Journal , the school sent out a “ RAVE ” alert early Thursday morning @ @ @ @ @ “ Black Male wearing a red hoodie ” who had run away from Clark County @ @ @ @ @ told people to contact Louisville metro police if they saw a man matching the description @

(THE COLLEGE FIX) -- About a week after Ohio State faced a 100-person-strong protest for a campus crime alert which identified the suspects as “black,” the president of the University of Louisville is apologizing for same.
According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, the school sent out a “RAVE” alert early Thursday morning warning the campus of a “Black Male wearing a red hoodie” who had run away from Clark County Indiana Police.
The notice told people to contact Louisville metro police if they saw a man matching the description.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-13--'We hope they die': Hospital treating ambushed deputies inundated by protesters

( NEW YORK POST ) -- Anti-police protesters descended on a Los Angeles hospital where two deputies were fighting for @ @ @ @ @ and shot in the head — chanting , “ we hope they die , ” @ @ @ @ @ sick chants came outside as the two rookie officers — one a 31-year-old mother of @ @ @ @ @ were still fighting for their lives after being “ critically injured ” as they sat @ @ @ @ @ the caught-on-camera ambush in Compton .
“ To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit @ @ @ @ @ yelling ‘ We hope they die ’ referring to 2 LA Sheriff ’ s ambushed @ @ @ @ @ DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL , ” Los Angeles County @ @ @ @ @ early Sunday .

(NEW YORK POST) -- Anti-police protesters descended on a Los Angeles hospital where two deputies were fighting for their lives after being ambushed and shot in the head — chanting, “we hope they die,” according to officials.
The sick chants came outside as the two rookie officers — one a 31-year-old mother of a six year-old boy — were still fighting for their lives after being “critically injured” as they sat in their patrol car in the caught-on-camera ambush in Compton.
“To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling ‘We hope they die’ referring to 2 LA Sheriff’s ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department tweeted early Sunday.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-09-13--Trump: If L.A. deputies die, 'animal' gunman deserves death penalty

The gunman who ambushed two Los Angeles County deputies should be executed if the deputies do not survive , President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday .
As of Sunday afternoon , it was not clear whether police had identified the suspect who , according to a surveillance video , walked up to the passenger ’ s side of the parked car the deputies were in and fired several times at close range .
The incident took place at about 7 p.m. local time Saturday near a train station in Compton , the Los Angeles Times reported .
Both deputies are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die , fast trial death penalty for the killer .
Only way to stop this ! ''
the president tweeted Sunday morning in response to the shooting .
`` Animals that must be hit hard ! ''
Trump tweeted as he shared a surveillance video of the incident , in which a gunman fired multiple rounds into the vehicle .
WARNING : The video below contains graphic violence that some viewers may find disturbing : On Sunday , Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said the deputies ' condition was a “ double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles Times .
Citing sources it did not name , the Times reported that `` at least one of the deputies was shot in the face and the other in the head . ''
Police said one of the deputies is a 31-year-old mother of a 6-year-old boy .
The other is a 24-year-old man .
Both were sworn in just 14 months ago , according to Villanueva .
Villanueva said Saturday that one of the deputies called the gunman a “ dark-skinned male , ” according to Fox News .
The deputies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shooting , but ABC News Radio reporter Alex Stone tweeted Sunday afternoon that both appeared to be improving .
`` A senior official in the LA County Sheriff ’ s Department tells @ abc that both deputies shot last night are now stable .
The female deputy was shot in the jaw and arms .
She is critical but stable .
The male deputy was shot in the forehead and in an arm and a hand .
Both are stable , '' Stone wrote .
The shooting reflects the deadly reality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Las Vegas police Lt. Randy Sutton said during an appearance on `` Fox & Friends Weekend . ''
“ This is a reality check for America , ” said Sutton , who founded The Wounded Blue , a nonprofit organization that provides aid for injured and disabled officers .
“ There is a war on cops .
It truly exists , and the fact that this individual was so emboldened as to walk up to this patrol car and open fire and ambush these two deputies is a stark reminder of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputies were taken became the scene of more conflict , as anti-police demonstrators tried to block the entrance and , according to one witness , even enter the building , KABC-TV reported .
`` They were saying death to the police , kill the police and they were using all types of curse words and derogatory terms about the police , just provoking our police officers , '' Bishop Juan Carlos Mendez with Churches in Action said .
`` [ It 's ] unacceptable behavior because the hospital should be a sanctuary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sutton said the protesters exhibited “ some of the most disgusting human behavior that I could possibly imagine.
” “ Think what kind of human being it takes to show up where two officers are fighting for their lives and say something as horrendous as , ‘ We hope you die , ’ ” Sutton said .
“ This is behavior that has become all too common in America , and this is the evidence of the war on cops.
” During an event in Las Vegas on Sunday , Trump gave a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when authorities find the man who shot the deputies .
`` We are looking for that person and when we find that person , we are going to get much faster with our courts and we have to get much tougher with our sentencing , '' the president said , according to a White House media pool report .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

The gunman who ambushed two Los Angeles County deputies should be executed if the deputies do not survive, President Donald Trump tweeted Sunday.
As of Sunday afternoon, it was not clear whether police had identified the suspect who, according to a surveillance video, walked up to the passenger’s side of the parked car the deputies were in and fired several times at close range.
The incident took place at about 7 p.m. local time Saturday near a train station in Compton, the Los Angeles Times reported. Both deputies are now expected to survive.
"If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this!" the president tweeted Sunday morning in response to the shooting.
If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"Animals that must be hit hard!" Trump tweeted as he shared a surveillance video of the incident, in which a gunman fired multiple rounds into the vehicle.
WARNING: The video below contains graphic violence that some viewers may find disturbing:
Animals that must be hit hard! https://t.co/zrOd9ZUl8o — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020
On Sunday, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said the deputies' condition was a “double miracle," according to the Los Angeles Times. Citing sources it did not name, the Times reported that "at least one of the deputies was shot in the face and the other in the head."
Police said one of the deputies is a 31-year-old mother of a 6-year-old boy. The other is a 24-year-old man. Both were sworn in just 14 months ago, according to Villanueva.
Villanueva said Saturday that one of the deputies called the gunman a “dark-skinned male,” according to Fox News.
The deputies had been listed in critical condition since the shooting, but ABC News Radio reporter Alex Stone tweeted Sunday afternoon that both appeared to be improving.
"A senior official in the LA County Sheriff’s Department tells @abc that both deputies shot last night are now stable. The female deputy was shot in the jaw and arms. She is critical but stable. The male deputy was shot in the forehead and in an arm and a hand. Both are stable," Stone wrote.
A senior official in the LA County Sheriff’s Department tells @abc that both deputies shot last night are now stable. The female deputy was shot in the jaw and arms. She is critical but stable. The male deputy was shot in the forehead and in an arm and a hand. Both are stable. — Alex Stone (@astoneabcnews) September 13, 2020
The shooting reflects the deadly reality of being a police officer in 2020, former Las Vegas police Lt. Randy Sutton said during an appearance on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
“This is a reality check for America,” said Sutton, who founded The Wounded Blue, a nonprofit organization that provides aid for injured and disabled officers. “There is a war on cops. It truly exists, and the fact that this individual was so emboldened as to walk up to this patrol car and open fire and ambush these two deputies is a stark reminder of that fact.”
The hospital where the wounded deputies were taken became the scene of more conflict, as anti-police demonstrators tried to block the entrance and, according to one witness, even enter the building, KABC-TV reported.
To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling "We hope they die" referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. — LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020
"They were saying death to the police, kill the police and they were using all types of curse words and derogatory terms about the police, just provoking our police officers," Bishop Juan Carlos Mendez with Churches in Action said.
"[It's] unacceptable behavior because the hospital should be a sanctuary, we should leave hospitals alone."
Sutton said the protesters exhibited “some of the most disgusting human behavior that I could possibly imagine.”
“Think what kind of human being it takes to show up where two officers are fighting for their lives and say something as horrendous as, ‘We hope you die,’” Sutton said.
“This is behavior that has become all too common in America, and this is the evidence of the war on cops.”
During an event in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump gave a preview of what he said will happen when authorities find the man who shot the deputies.
"We are looking for that person and when we find that person, we are going to get much faster with our courts and we have to get much tougher with our sentencing," the president said, according to a White House media pool report.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-09-13--Trump's Supreme Court shortlist has 'vetted judicial rock stars'

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics . ]
The Supreme Court will be a key factor for 64 % of voters this November .
President Trump just announced new additions to his list of potential candidates for the high court .
After some disappointing decisions at the end of the court ’ s last term , conservatives are keenly aware that this year ’ s election will be decisive for the Supreme Court .
And they -- we -- are thrilled with this revised list of possible nominees .
The updated list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rock stars , many of them women .
Court watchers predict that the female candidates will be front and center if a vacancy occurs , especially if created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s retirement .
That ’ s great news for conservative women like me .
It ’ s even better news for girls like my three daughters .
They might finally have a role model on the highest court in the land .
The first female justice on the Supreme Court , Sandra Day O ’ Connor , was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned out to be anything but conservative .
Among other disappointments , O ’ Connor read a right to abortion into the Constitution as a necessity for women to achieve economic and social equality .
She even voted in 2000 to strike down a state ban on late-term partial-birth abortion .
The women on the president ’ s current list have an entirely different outlook on the Constitution .
All are highly respected judges and lawyers who have demonstrated a commitment to the Constitution ’ s original meaning and text .
Many also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a great justice .
They transcend the narrow central casting tropes .
All were educated at top-notch law schools ( but not necessarily Ivy League ones , those impeccably elite but doctrinally progressive institutions ) .
A judge from “ Middle America ” might be refreshingly uninterested in the approval of the proverbial Georgetown cocktail party crowd .
Some excellent additions to the list – 11th Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa , Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the Fourth Circuit , and Deputy White House Counsel Kate Todd – are new to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously on the shortlist stands out for her staying power .
She is a known quantity and has already been tested in the glare of the national spotlight .
She ’ s also already a hero in Middle America : Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
Barrett is known for her brilliance , her rock-solid judicial record , her vision of human dignity and her inspirational persona .
She clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was reportedly a Scalia favorite .
Judge Barrett talks about how formative it was to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will hone your skill in making oral legal arguments more than going toe to toe with Justice Scalia.
” Barrett would help solidify the Scalia legacy .
Her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit sparked fireworks when Sens .
Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin , ignoring the constitutional prohibition on any religious test for office , went on anti-Catholic diatribes .
Barrett displayed grace under fire .
She successfully met their condescension and bigotry with her steely strength and feminine genius .
The attacks backfired , and Judge Barrett instantly became a heroine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett ’ s resume reflects her choices as a lawyer who has balanced a brilliant legal career with the joys and challenges of motherhood .
After her Supreme Court clerkship and some time at prestigious Washington , D.C. , law firms , she chose a professorship at the University of Notre Dame and a life raising her family in the Midwest .
At Notre Dame , where she continues to teach in addition to sitting on the bench , Barrett is universally admired for her sharp legal mind , collegiality , and generosity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the faculty – representing all political stripes – supported her nomination to the Seventh Circuit , writing in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee : “ She is a brilliant teacher and scholar , and a warm and generous colleague .
She possesses in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists : discipline , intellect , wisdom , impeccable temperament , and above all , fundamental decency and humanity.
” In addition , all of Barrett ’ s fellow Supreme Court clerks – including those who clerked for liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character , ” they wrote in unanimity .
“ She is eminently qualified for the job.
” Amy Coney Barrett stands out on the list of Supreme Court possibilities as a committed originalist with guts -- tested guts .
Judge Barrett is also confirmable ; Democrats Tim Kaine , Joe Manchin , and Joe Donnelly voted for her Circuit Court nomination .
But new additions to the list are both welcome and exciting .
As Justice Ginsburg says , it is “ good for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all sizes and shapes , just as men do , and they do n't necessarily look alike or think alike . ''
Correction : Due to an editing error , an earlier version of this essay said Kate Todd is former deputy White House counsel .
She currently holds that post .

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Politics.]
By Maureen Ferguson
Real Clear Politics
The Supreme Court will be a key factor for 64% of voters this November. President Trump just announced new additions to his list of potential candidates for the high court. After some disappointing decisions at the end of the court’s last term, conservatives are keenly aware that this year’s election will be decisive for the Supreme Court. And they -- we -- are thrilled with this revised list of possible nominees.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The updated list is a carefully vetted roster of judicial rock stars, many of them women. Court watchers predict that the female candidates will be front and center if a vacancy occurs, especially if created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s retirement.
That’s great news for conservative women like me. It’s even better news for girls like my three daughters. They might finally have a role model on the highest court in the land.
The first female justice on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor, was a Reagan appointee, but her judicial philosophy turned out to be anything but conservative. Among other disappointments, O’Connor read a right to abortion into the Constitution as a necessity for women to achieve economic and social equality. She even voted in 2000 to strike down a state ban on late-term partial-birth abortion.
The women on the president’s current list have an entirely different outlook on the Constitution. All are highly respected judges and lawyers who have demonstrated a commitment to the Constitution’s original meaning and text. Many also represent a broader idea of who might make a great justice. They transcend the narrow central casting tropes. All were educated at top-notch law schools (but not necessarily Ivy League ones, those impeccably elite but doctrinally progressive institutions). A judge from “Middle America” might be refreshingly uninterested in the approval of the proverbial Georgetown cocktail party crowd.
Are you confident President Trump will choose a Supreme Court justice you can celebrate? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 100% (33 Votes) 0% (0 Votes)
Some excellent additions to the list – 11th Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, Judge Allison Jones Rushing of the Fourth Circuit, and Deputy White House Counsel Kate Todd – are new to the national stage. One woman who was previously on the shortlist stands out for her staying power. She is a known quantity and has already been tested in the glare of the national spotlight. She’s also already a hero in Middle America: Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
Barrett is known for her brilliance, her rock-solid judicial record, her vision of human dignity and her inspirational persona. She clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was reportedly a Scalia favorite. Judge Barrett talks about how formative it was to be mentored by him: “Nothing will hone your skill in making oral legal arguments more than going toe to toe with Justice Scalia.” Barrett would help solidify the Scalia legacy.
Her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit sparked fireworks when Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin, ignoring the constitutional prohibition on any religious test for office, went on anti-Catholic diatribes. Barrett displayed grace under fire. She successfully met their condescension and bigotry with her steely strength and feminine genius. The attacks backfired, and Judge Barrett instantly became a heroine to conservative women across the country.
Barrett’s resume reflects her choices as a lawyer who has balanced a brilliant legal career with the joys and challenges of motherhood. After her Supreme Court clerkship and some time at prestigious Washington, D.C., law firms, she chose a professorship at the University of Notre Dame and a life raising her family in the Midwest.
At Notre Dame, where she continues to teach in addition to sitting on the bench, Barrett is universally admired for her sharp legal mind, collegiality, and generosity in mentoring students. Every member of the faculty – representing all political stripes – supported her nomination to the Seventh Circuit, writing in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: “She is a brilliant teacher and scholar, and a warm and generous colleague. She possesses in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency and humanity.”
In addition, all of Barrett’s fellow Supreme Court clerks – including those who clerked for liberal justices -- backed her nomination. “Professor Barrett is a woman of remarkable intellect and character,” they wrote in unanimity. “She is eminently qualified for the job.”
Amy Coney Barrett stands out on the list of Supreme Court possibilities as a committed originalist with guts -- tested guts. Judge Barrett is also confirmable; Democrats Tim Kaine, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly voted for her Circuit Court nomination. But new additions to the list are both welcome and exciting. As Justice Ginsburg says, it is “good for the public to see that women come in all sizes and shapes, just as men do, and they don't necessarily look alike or think alike."
Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this essay said Kate Todd is former deputy White House counsel. She currently holds that post.