westernjournal--2020-04-29--Biden Campaign Crafted Talking Points on Tara Reade Allegation for Other Dems – Report

They ’ re trying to keep their stories straight .
Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign apparently wants to leave nothing to chance when it comes to an explosive sexual assault allegation lodged against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , according to a report by the liberal website BuzzFeed .
The campaign has issued talking points for Democrats to use if they are questioned by the media about claims by former Biden staffer Tara Reade that Biden assaulted her in 1993 , and , naturally , they ’ re relying on The New York Times to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed , ” the talking points conclude , according to BuzzFeed .
“ In this case , a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth : this incident did not happen.
” Well , there ’ s good reason to doubt exactly how “ thorough ” the review conducted by The Times actually was .
TRENDING : Black Veteran GOP Challenger Has a Message for Democrats Who Voted for Maxine Waters The fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Times , all but stated outright the Biden campaign had veto power over the actual wording of the piece published on April 12 raises serious questions about what the “ newspaper of record ” was really trying to accomplish .
In fact , the very first paragraph of the talking points cites a paragraph of The Times article that Baquet admitted had been reworded after the story was published to meet the Biden campaign ’ s demand .
“ The New York Times did weeks of extensive investigative research , talking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1990s , including those who worked directly with Ms. Reade , ” the talking points state .
“ Here is what they found : ‘ No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting , nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade ’ s allegation .
The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr .
Biden . '
” As originally published , that last sentence read : “ The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
” Since “ beyond the hugs , kisses and touching ” probably wouldn ’ t sound great in a Biden campaign talking point , it looks like the fix was in from the get-go .
Naturally , that hasn ’ t stopped some Democrats from using The Times story as though it were the final word on the subject .
The BuzzFeed article doesn ’ t say when the talking points were circulated by the Biden campaign , but in an April 16 interview with MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar used The Times story as the centerpiece of her answer ( and used the word “ thorough ” twice in the process ) .
“ He has said , and I agree with this , you ’ ve got to get to the bottom of every case and all allegations .
I think the New York Times — I haven ’ t read all the stories .
I read that one .
Your viewers should read that .
It was very thorough .
They interviewed people , ” Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lapse into Utter Nonsense When Pressed on China and Son Hunter “ I think this case has been investigated .
I know the vice president as a major leader on domestic abuse , I worked with him on that .
And I think that , again , the viewers should read the article .
It was very thorough.
” Americans are supposed to ignore the fact that not only is The New York Times so biased it ’ s essentially the house organ of the Democratic Party , but also that Klobuchar is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potential running mate for Biden .
In short , a woman with a lot to gain from Biden is using a Biden-supporting newspaper to convince American voters that Biden is innocent .
Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — who has been campaigning openly for the vice presidential selection — also relied heavily on The Times when answering a question about Biden in an interview with Trump-hating CNN host Don Lemon on Tuesday night .
She didn ’ t call The Times investigation “ thorough , ” though .
She called it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women deserve to be heard and I believe that they need to be listened to , but I also believe that those allegations have to be investigated by credible sources , ” she said .
“ The New York Times did a deep investigation , and they found that the accusation was not credible.
” “ I know Joe Biden , and I think that he is telling the truth and that this did not happen.
” There are a couple of things that should be noted here .
First , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusation is true , and Biden deserves the presumption of innocence the left and the media — very much including The New York Times — would never afford a conservative faced with a similar accusation , like , say , Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh .
Second , talking points are a routine part of politics — every side uses them to keep party representatives on the same page when it comes to dealing with public topics .
But the Biden campaign ’ s talking points — as they relate directly to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with references to a New York Times story that even The New York Times executive editor admits was doctored to suit the Biden campaign .
That won ’ t convince anyone who doesn ’ t already want to be convinced of Biden ’ s innocence .
But Democrats are playing the hand they have .
They might have the entire mainstream media complex behind the effort to defeat President Donald Trump in November , but they ’ re saddled with a candidate who ’ s weak by any honest measure .
Biden is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic field made of liberal harridans like Elizabeth Warren , wackos like Marianne Williamson and the certified socialist Bernie Sanders — not one of whom had a prayer of winning the support of an America that elected Trump in 2016 .
Now Biden , the strongest of the weak , is facing a sexual assault allegation that not only makes a lie of his own image as a champion for women , but makes a lie of much of the Democratic Party ’ s propaganda of the # MeToo era .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hideously warped desecration of journalism published by The New York Times , one that ’ s being undermined with virtually every new development in the Reade case .
It ’ s going to be tough to keep those stories straight .
It ’ s a long time until November .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

They’re trying to keep their stories straight.
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign apparently wants to leave nothing to chance when it comes to an explosive sexual assault allegation lodged against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, according to a report by the liberal website BuzzFeed.
The campaign has issued talking points for Democrats to use if they are questioned by the media about claims by former Biden staffer Tara Reade that Biden assaulted her in 1993, and, naturally, they’re relying on The New York Times to try to make their case.
“Biden believes that all women have the right to be heard and to have their claims thoroughly reviewed,” the talking points conclude, according to BuzzFeed. “In this case, a thorough review by the New York Times has led to the truth: this incident did not happen.”
Well, there’s good reason to doubt exactly how “thorough” the review conducted by The Times actually was.
The fact that Dean Baquet, executive editor of The Times, all but stated outright the Biden campaign had veto power over the actual wording of the piece published on April 12 raises serious questions about what the “newspaper of record” was really trying to accomplish.
In fact, the very first paragraph of the talking points cites a paragraph of The Times article that Baquet admitted had been reworded after the story was published to meet the Biden campaign’s demand.
“The New York Times did weeks of extensive investigative research, talking to nearly two dozen former Biden staff from the 1990s, including those who worked directly with Ms. Reade,” the talking points state.
“Here is what they found: ‘No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.'”
As originally published, that last sentence read:
“The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.”
Since “beyond the hugs, kisses and touching” probably wouldn’t sound great in a Biden campaign talking point, it looks like the fix was in from the get-go.
Naturally, that hasn’t stopped some Democrats from using The Times story as though it were the final word on the subject.
The BuzzFeed article doesn’t say when the talking points were circulated by the Biden campaign, but in an April 16 interview with MSNBC (Breitbart has the video here) Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar used The Times story as the centerpiece of her answer (and used the word “thorough” twice in the process).
“He has said, and I agree with this, you’ve got to get to the bottom of every case and all allegations. I think the New York Times — I haven’t read all the stories. I read that one. Your viewers should read that. It was very thorough. They interviewed people,” Klobuchar said.
“I think this case has been investigated. I know the vice president as a major leader on domestic abuse, I worked with him on that. And I think that, again, the viewers should read the article. It was very thorough.”
Americans are supposed to ignore the fact that not only is The New York Times so biased it’s essentially the house organ of the Democratic Party, but also that Klobuchar is one of the names being circulated as a potential running mate for Biden.
In short, a woman with a lot to gain from Biden is using a Biden-supporting newspaper to convince American voters that Biden is innocent.
Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — who has been campaigning openly for the vice presidential selection — also relied heavily on The Times when answering a question about Biden in an interview with Trump-hating CNN host Don Lemon on Tuesday night.
She didn’t call The Times investigation “thorough,” though. She called it “deep.”
“I believe that women deserve to be heard and I believe that they need to be listened to, but I also believe that those allegations have to be investigated by credible sources,” she said. “The New York Times did a deep investigation, and they found that the accusation was not credible.”
“I know Joe Biden, and I think that he is telling the truth and that this did not happen.”
There are a couple of things that should be noted here.
First, there’s no proof that Reade’s accusation is true, and Biden deserves the presumption of innocence the left and the media — very much including The New York Times — would never afford a conservative faced with a similar accusation, like, say, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Second, talking points are a routine part of politics — every side uses them to keep party representatives on the same page when it comes to dealing with public topics.
But the Biden campaign’s talking points — as they relate directly to the Reade accusation — literally begin and end with references to a New York Times story that even The New York Times executive editor admits was doctored to suit the Biden campaign.
That won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already want to be convinced of Biden’s innocence.
Could this sexual assault allegation sink Biden's presidential campaign? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 86% (298 Votes) No: 14% (48 Votes)
But Democrats are playing the hand they have.
They might have the entire mainstream media complex behind the effort to defeat President Donald Trump in November, but they’re saddled with a candidate who’s weak by any honest measure.
Biden is the presumptive Democratic candidate because he outlasted a Democratic field made of liberal harridans like Elizabeth Warren, wackos like Marianne Williamson and the certified socialist Bernie Sanders — not one of whom had a prayer of winning the support of an America that elected Trump in 2016.
Now Biden, the strongest of the weak, is facing a sexual assault allegation that not only makes a lie of his own image as a champion for women, but makes a lie of much of the Democratic Party’s propaganda of the #MeToo era.
And all Democrats have to answer with is a hideously warped desecration of journalism published by The New York Times, one that’s being undermined with virtually every new development in the Reade case.
It’s going to be tough to keep those stories straight. It’s a long time until November.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-29--AOC Slams Congress Over Delayed PPP Funds That She Literally Voted Against Herself

Here ’ s a statement that ’ s probably not going to surprise anyone who ’ s a regular reader of The Western Journal : Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a hypocrite .
What ’ s surprising , instead , is the understatement .
It ’ s a bit like saying that Pete Rose occasionally likes placing a wager or Keith Richards sometimes partakes in recreational substances .
This is someone whose career is mostly woven out of hypocrisy .
So , why should it be surprising that AOC is now lambasting Congress for sending small businesses on a “ wild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Program funds she voted against ?
In a tweet Tuesday , AOC retweeted NBC News reporter Sahil Kapur ’ s post about Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts “ team [ ing ] up on a new proposal to halt big mergers during the coronavirus pandemic.
” TRENDING : Black Veteran GOP Challenger Has a Message for Democrats Who Voted for Maxine Waters “ Congress gave a $ 4 TRILLION check to Wall Street while sending mom+pops on a wild goose chase for PPP , ” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted .
( The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate as well , though you can read more about that here . )
“ That is major , oligarchic , economy-shaping power Congress just gave the wealthy .
“ The LEAST we should do is halt big mergers during COVID to slow the consolidation of sectors.
” Now , before you hit that button I know you want to hit , please be aware that AOC isn ’ t necessarily wrong about that “ wild goose chase for PPP ” part .
The infrastructure clearly wasn ’ t in place to deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important parts of the coronavirus relief package .
RELATED : 'The Squad ' Proposes Bill Allowing Feds To Literally Cancel Property Rights During Pandemic Any member of Congress willing to hold other members of Congress accountable for this is a good thing .
Yes , even ( shudder ) ( retch ) ( come on , you can say this , C. Douglas .
You can do it ) Alexand… ( where ’ s that airsickness bag I ganked from Delta last time ? )
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
Now , is the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ wild goose chase ” a non sequitur entirely extraneous to her argument about canceling mergers during the pandemic crisis “ to slow the consolidation of sectors ?
” Very much so .
Does it have anything with her argument ?
Not in the least .
And perhaps most importantly , does she have any place to talk about the PPP ?
Of course not .
She opposed both bills that funded it .
First off , AOC was on the record as opposing the Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for small business loans via the PPP , on the grounds that it was one of “ the largest corporate bailouts ” in “ American history , ” according to The Intercept .
The so-called “ phase 3 ” coronavirus relief bill passed the House in a voice vote , meaning lawmakers ’ votes weren ’ t recorded .
But guess what ?
AOC also opposed the follow-up legislation that replenished the PPP .
“ Debating the latest coronavirus aid package on the House floor Thursday , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said her parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most impacted district in America , ' ” the New York Daily News wrote in a Sunday editorial criticizing her for voting against the so-called “ phase 3.5 ” version of coronavirus relief legislation , the one that contained an additional $ 484 billion in funding for the PPP .
“ We ’ ll go further : She ’ s from the hardest-hit part of the hardest-hit city of the hardest-hit state in the hardest-hit country on Earth .
“ So why was she one of just five members of Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivering boatloads of urgently needed help to small business , and to hospitals , and to ramp up testing ?
Her four comrades in arms were right-wing Republicans from far-less impacted districts down South or out West .
“ AOC claims it ’ s because the bill didn ’ t go far enough .
Yeah : The first aid bill didn ’ t go far enough .
Nor did the second .
Nor did the third .
The fourth didn ’ t get there either , but the response to crises happen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each massive package because it didn ’ t go all the way , we ’ d all be even deader in the water.
” Agreed .
So she was against both bills that contained Paycheck Protection Program money , but she ’ s also making a big deal out of how it ’ s being doled out .
Now , there ’ s nothing necessarily wrong with that unless you ’ re using it to make a point about how you ’ re … going to stop corporate mergers .
Not necessarily corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just big companies , period .
“ The ‘ Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act ’ would impose a moratorium on mergers and acquisitions involving large companies until the Federal Trade Commission ‘ determines that small businesses , workers , and consumers are no longer under severe financial distress , ’ according to a summary of the proposal reviewed by NBC News , ” the network reported .
“ Affected firms would include businesses with over $ 100 million in revenue or financial firms with market capitalization of over $ 100 million ; private equity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are majority-owned by them ) ; businesses that have an exclusive patent on products like personal protective equipment which pertain to the crisis ; and other transactions are already required by law to be reported to the FTC.
” So , why did AOC vote against $ 484 billion in funding to help keep small businesses afloat ?
“ My concern is that we are giving away the farm , ” Ocasio-Cortez said , according to Fox News , adding that she didn ’ t feel the bill provided enough relief for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back to my communities and tell them to just wait for CARES four because we have now passed three , four pieces of legislation that ’ s related to coronavirus .
And every time it ’ s the next one , the next one , the next one , and my constituents are dying.
” So she voted against a plan that included PPP , which ensured that people would get relief .
She ’ s now upset that they can ’ t access that relief easily enough .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hypocrisy on a massive scale .
Good work , AOC !
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Here’s a statement that’s probably not going to surprise anyone who’s a regular reader of The Western Journal: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a hypocrite.
What’s surprising, instead, is the understatement. It’s a bit like saying that Pete Rose occasionally likes placing a wager or Keith Richards sometimes partakes in recreational substances.
This is someone whose career is mostly woven out of hypocrisy.
So, why should it be surprising that AOC is now lambasting Congress for sending small businesses on a “wild goose chase” for the Paycheck Protection Program funds she voted against?
In a tweet Tuesday, AOC retweeted NBC News reporter Sahil Kapur’s post about Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts “team[ing] up on a new proposal to halt big mergers during the coronavirus pandemic.”
Scoop: @EWarren and @AOC team up on a new proposal to halt big mergers during the coronavirus pandemic. Warren sees “private equity vultures” looking to “gobble up” small biz. AOC warns of “decades-long economic consequences” of inaction for consumers.https://t.co/zd7H4w73PB — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) April 28, 2020
“Congress gave a $4 TRILLION check to Wall Street while sending mom+pops on a wild goose chase for PPP,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted. (The $4 trillion isn’t entirely accurate as well, though you can read more about that here.)
“That is major, oligarchic, economy-shaping power Congress just gave the wealthy.
Is AOC a hypocrite? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (1470 Votes) No: 0% (5 Votes)
“The LEAST we should do is halt big mergers during COVID to slow the consolidation of sectors.”
Congress gave a $4 TRILLION check to Wall Street while sending mom+pops on a wild goose chase for PPP. That is major, oligarchic, economy-shaping power Congress just gave the wealthy. The LEAST we should do is halt big mergers during COVID to slow the consolidation of sectors. https://t.co/WjRXlrs5wR — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) April 28, 2020
Now, before you hit that button I know you want to hit, please be aware that AOC isn’t necessarily wrong about that “wild goose chase for PPP” part.
The infrastructure clearly wasn’t in place to deal with what was one of the most important parts of the coronavirus relief package.
Any member of Congress willing to hold other members of Congress accountable for this is a good thing. Yes, even (shudder)(retch)(come on, you can say this, C. Douglas. You can do it) Alexand… (where’s that airsickness bag I ganked from Delta last time?) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Whew. OK. That’s done.
Now, is the fact that she’s somewhat correct about the “wild goose chase” a non sequitur entirely extraneous to her argument about canceling mergers during the pandemic crisis “to slow the consolidation of sectors?” Very much so.
Does it have anything with her argument? Not in the least.
And perhaps most importantly, does she have any place to talk about the PPP? Of course not. She opposed both bills that funded it.
First off, AOC was on the record as opposing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, which allocated $349 billion for small business loans via the PPP, on the grounds that it was one of “the largest corporate bailouts” in “American history,” according to The Intercept.
The so-called “phase 3” coronavirus relief bill passed the House in a voice vote, meaning lawmakers’ votes weren’t recorded.
But guess what? AOC also opposed the follow-up legislation that replenished the PPP.
“Debating the latest coronavirus aid package on the House floor Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said her parts of the Bronx and Queens comprise ‘the most impacted district in America,'” the New York Daily News wrote in a Sunday editorial criticizing her for voting against the so-called “phase 3.5” version of coronavirus relief legislation, the one that contained an additional $484 billion in funding for the PPP.
“We’ll go further: She’s from the hardest-hit part of the hardest-hit city of the hardest-hit state in the hardest-hit country on Earth.
“So why was she one of just five members of Congress to vote against the $484 billion bill delivering boatloads of urgently needed help to small business, and to hospitals, and to ramp up testing? Her four comrades in arms were right-wing Republicans from far-less impacted districts down South or out West.
“AOC claims it’s because the bill didn’t go far enough. Yeah: The first aid bill didn’t go far enough. Nor did the second. Nor did the third. The fourth didn’t get there either, but the response to crises happen in steps. If everyone said no to each massive package because it didn’t go all the way, we’d all be even deader in the water.”
Agreed. So she was against both bills that contained Paycheck Protection Program money, but she’s also making a big deal out of how it’s being doled out.
Now, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that unless you’re using it to make a point about how you’re … going to stop corporate mergers. Not necessarily corporate mergers that involve companies that received bailouts. Just big companies, period.
“The ‘Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act’ would impose a moratorium on mergers and acquisitions involving large companies until the Federal Trade Commission ‘determines that small businesses, workers, and consumers are no longer under severe financial distress,’ according to a summary of the proposal reviewed by NBC News,” the network reported.
“Affected firms would include businesses with over $100 million in revenue or financial firms with market capitalization of over $100 million; private equity companies and hedge funds (or entities that are majority-owned by them); businesses that have an exclusive patent on products like personal protective equipment which pertain to the crisis; and other transactions are already required by law to be reported to the FTC.”
So, why did AOC vote against $484 billion in funding to help keep small businesses afloat?
“My concern is that we are giving away the farm,” Ocasio-Cortez said, according to Fox News, adding that she didn’t feel the bill provided enough relief for her constituents.
“I cannot go back to my communities and tell them to just wait for CARES four because we have now passed three, four pieces of legislation that’s related to coronavirus. And every time it’s the next one, the next one, the next one, and my constituents are dying.”
So she voted against a plan that included PPP, which ensured that people would get relief. She’s now upset that they can’t access that relief easily enough.
It’s not just regular hypocrisy; it’s hypocrisy on a massive scale. Good work, AOC!
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-29--Cyber Experts Warn of Major Election Vulnerabilities Going into 2020

With the November elections quickly approaching , election security experts are warning that the United States is very vulnerable to cyberattacks that could change the results of races , including the presidential contest .
Further , some simple changes could be made that would do much to ensure accurate election reporting , the experts say .
Harri Hursti — one the the world ’ s foremost election security experts — observed in his newly released HBO documentary , “ Kill Chain : the Cyber War on America ’ s Elections , ” that due to the way electronic voting is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , the system is vulnerable to hacking .
“ The problem is once you understand how everything works , you understand how fragile everything is , ” Hursti says in the film .
“ I keep hearing that the system is unhackable .
Everything is hackable , always , ” the cyber expert added .
TRENDING : Black Veteran GOP Challenger Has a Message for Democrats Who Voted for Maxine Waters Hursti famously demonstrated to Florida election officials just how easy it was to overwrite voting machine software to change results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hacking Democracy.
” Last month , he told WCBS : “ The most frightening thing is that from 2006 to now , nothing changed .
The actual software that I hacked in 2005 is still in use .
Those machines are still in 20 states.
” Beyond the vulnerability of voting machines themselves to hacking , other vulnerabilities exist in the tallying and transmission of the results .
Two of the biggest misconceptions Americans likely have about how elections are conducted are that votes are counted by state and local election officials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if backed up by paper ballots , are not vulnerable to hacks .
In October 2016 , then-President Barack Obama made the oft-repeated argument that due to the decentralized nature of voting in the United States , elections , especially at the presidential level , can not be hacked or significantly altered .
“ There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America ’ s elections in part because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved , ” Obama said .
Election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal Americans need to understand that state and local officials , by and large , do not count the votes on election night , but have contracted private companies to do so .
“ It is incredible how many people believe that their county or their state run their elections , ” Ramsland said .
“ They have no idea that all elections are actually conducted by private companies , with virtually no oversight , no transparency.
” RELATED : Stacey Abrams Claims Tara Reade Accusation 'Not Credible , ' Says ' I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company writes the software , makes and sells the machines , keeps all the voter rolls , and tallies all the votes and reports them , ” he added .
“ It ’ s totally and completely jobbed out to a private company with private shareholders.
” Far from being decentralized , there are three main companies that tally the votes for election officials , according to “ Kill Chain ” : Election Systems & Software , Dominion Voting Systems and Hart Voting Systems .
Hursti noted that none of these companies agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There are “ commonalities ” between all the major companies in their election night reporting , he told The Western Journal .
One thing all the electronic voting systems have in common is a removable drive or memory device , which engages in two-way communication with the database when results from each voting machine are uploaded .
Hursti explained that all these devices are programmed how to organize and communicate the data to the central database .
“ The memory cards actually have a programming side , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So the program can dynamically look [ at ] what is happening and decide on the spot what is needed to be done in this precinct on this machine ” as part of changing the overall result .
“ Once you can send that instruction to the election management system , the election management system is sending the same programming into every voting machine , ” Hursti continued .
“ So the only thing you need to do is to modify that program , and there are so many different ways.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) to illustrate how votes typically flow from the precinct voting machines to databases maintained by companies like ES & S , Dominion and Hart to be tallied for the election results .
All this information travels over the internet to different databases ( as signified by the blue triangles ) along the way , which can be hacked .
The “ unofficial results ” are then made public through companies like Clarity Elections , which is the U.S. division of the Barcelona , Spain-based company Scytl .
The company proudly states on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered election modernization projects in the US since 2008 , and most recently for the 2018 Midterm Elections , when over 70 [ million ] voters from more than 900 U.S. counties successfully leveraged Scytl ’ s technology.
” Kentucky is one of its customers , which can be seen in the election results from last fall ’ s gubernatorial race between Democrat Andy Beshear and then-Republican incumbent Matt Bevin .
Beshear edged out Bevin by less than a percentage point .
According to Hursti , one of the problems with the relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the inability of election officials to provide adequate oversight .
“ The election services company tells how the show is run , ” he said , pointing out that those overseeing the election are often elected officials themselves , who may have very little or no IT expertise .
Nonetheless , he said , “ the elected official , who does not know what is going on , is legally responsible ” for the overall election results .
There would seem to be a perverse incentive if a hack were discovered by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the extent of it to election officials , so as to not hurt the company ’ s reputation and its potential opportunity to run future contests .
At the same time , the motivation is high for hostile actors ( whether they be foreign powers , or political or business interests ) to try to rig the outcome for their favored candidates or to simply sow seeds of distrust in the election process .
For his documentary “ Kill Chain , ” Hursti traveled to Juneau , Alaska , to investigate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Election ’ s website on election night in November 2016 .
The Associated Press reported that election officials determined the India-based hacker did not manipulate any information .
Hursti believes — based on a review of documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request — the truth in terms of the extent of the breach was “ likely … clearly worse ” than what the officials admitted .
“ There was no containment in effect , ” he said in the documentary .
He then went to India to speak with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who took credit for the breach .
“ I had root access , which just not only allowed me access to make small changes , but granted me full access of the system , ” including the real-time data to the presidential race , the hacker said .
“ I could have made any changes in the system , ” he added .
“ I could alter any data , any vote.
” CyberZeist chose not to out of fear of being caught , recounting that he reasoned , “ Do not edit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
Then we can plan or take out or execute our next steps.
” Hursti thinks the hacker likely deployed a cyber tool in the Alaska Division of Elections website .
CyberZeist told the documentarian that Russian interests are seeking to scan state election servers throughout the United States .
The AP reported in September 2017 that the Department of Homeland Security notified 21 states that attempts had been made to hack their election systems during 2016 election cycle .
Among those hit were the key battleground states of Florida , Ohio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ramsland explained that cyberattackers , whether they are working for the Russian government or some other entity , would likely just need to focus their efforts on a few key states like these to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential race .
“ So if you want to change the presidency of this country , all you really have to do is put your whole team on making sure that your guy wins precinct by precinct in at least a semi-believable number in five states and probably only the big metropolitan areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma is among the bipartisan supporters of some key election reforms , most importantly the ability to verify the results of a contest .
Last summer , Lankford spoke out in opposition to Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar ’ s “ Election Security Act ” on the grounds that it contained a partisan provision , but agreed with her on the importance of paper ballots and other cyber protection measures .
“ Every state , every precinct , should be able to verify [ an election ] , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the people in their area and to say , ‘ This is how you voted , and this how we verified the number is accurate . '
” “ It ’ s not just about the voting machine , or it ’ s not just about the piece of paper , ” he added .
“ It ’ s how it ’ s counted , how it ’ s presented , how the unofficial results even go out from the state the night of the election .
All those things matter.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a backup paper ballot , ” Lankford said .
“ Every state , every precinct .
Right now , that ’ s not so.
” Hursti and Ramsland agreed that human readable paper ballots must be required .
Some states and precincts use voting machines that generate paper ballots with barcodes , which of course are not human readable and therefore subject to manipulation .
This is true even if the ballot shows in writing the candidates chosen because what the barcode says is what is counted .
The experts also called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regardless of how large the margin of victory .
Such audits are conducted by randomly doing a hand recount of paper ballots until a preset statistical measure of certainty is achieved when the reviewers can conclude the computer-tabulated election results reflect the actual votes cast .
“ Elections are an American event , ” Lankford observed .
“ They have partisan results , but the act of voting is an American event.
” “ Election security should never be a partisan issue , ” he went on to state .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s something both parties — in fact independents , Republicans , Democrats , all parties — agree , that this should be a central issue for us.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

With the November elections quickly approaching, election security experts are warning that the United States is very vulnerable to cyberattacks that could change the results of races, including the presidential contest.
Further, some simple changes could be made that would do much to ensure accurate election reporting, the experts say.
Harri Hursti — one the the world’s foremost election security experts — observed in his newly released HBO documentary, “Kill Chain: the Cyber War on America’s Elections,” that due to the way electronic voting is conducted and the results reported throughout the United States, the system is vulnerable to hacking.
“The problem is once you understand how everything works, you understand how fragile everything is,” Hursti says in the film.
“I keep hearing that the system is unhackable. Everything is hackable, always,” the cyber expert added.
Hursti famously demonstrated to Florida election officials just how easy it was to overwrite voting machine software to change results for his 2006 documentary film, “Hacking Democracy.”
Last month, he told WCBS: “The most frightening thing is that from 2006 to now, nothing changed. The actual software that I hacked in 2005 is still in use. Those machines are still in 20 states.”
Beyond the vulnerability of voting machines themselves to hacking, other vulnerabilities exist in the tallying and transmission of the results.
Do you support paper ballots and risk-limiting audits of election results? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 87% (76 Votes) No: 13% (11 Votes)
Two of the biggest misconceptions Americans likely have about how elections are conducted are that votes are counted by state and local election officials and that the vote tallies themselves, even if backed up by paper ballots, are not vulnerable to hacks.
In October 2016, then-President Barack Obama made the oft-repeated argument that due to the decentralized nature of voting in the United States, elections, especially at the presidential level, cannot be hacked or significantly altered.
“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections in part because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved,” Obama said.
Election security expert Russell Ramsland told The Western Journal Americans need to understand that state and local officials, by and large, do not count the votes on election night, but have contracted private companies to do so.
“It is incredible how many people believe that their county or their state run their elections,” Ramsland said. “They have no idea that all elections are actually conducted by private companies, with virtually no oversight, no transparency.”
“And that private company writes the software, makes and sells the machines, keeps all the voter rolls, and tallies all the votes and reports them,” he added. “It’s totally and completely jobbed out to a private company with private shareholders.”
Far from being decentralized, there are three main companies that tally the votes for election officials, according to “Kill Chain”: Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart Voting Systems.
Hursti noted that none of these companies agreed to be interviewed for “Kill Chain.”
There are “commonalities” between all the major companies in their election night reporting, he told The Western Journal.
One thing all the electronic voting systems have in common is a removable drive or memory device, which engages in two-way communication with the database when results from each voting machine are uploaded.
Hursti explained that all these devices are programmed how to organize and communicate the data to the central database.
“The memory cards actually have a programming side,” he said. “Programming can have a lot of logic. So the program can dynamically look [at] what is happening and decide on the spot what is needed to be done in this precinct on this machine” as part of changing the overall result.
“Once you can send that instruction to the election management system, the election management system is sending the same programming into every voting machine,” Hursti continued.
“So the only thing you need to do is to modify that program, and there are so many different ways.”
Ramsland created a diagram (shown below) to illustrate how votes typically flow from the precinct voting machines to databases maintained by companies like ES&S, Dominion and Hart to be tallied for the election results.
All this information travels over the internet to different databases (as signified by the blue triangles) along the way, which can be hacked.
The “unofficial results” are then made public through companies like Clarity Elections, which is the U.S. division of the Barcelona, Spain-based company Scytl.
The company proudly states on its website that it has “successfully delivered election modernization projects in the US since 2008, and most recently for the 2018 Midterm Elections, when over 70 [million] voters from more than 900 U.S. counties successfully leveraged Scytl’s technology.”
Kentucky is one of its customers, which can be seen in the election results from last fall’s gubernatorial race between Democrat Andy Beshear and then-Republican incumbent Matt Bevin.
Beshear edged out Bevin by less than a percentage point.
According to Hursti, one of the problems with the relatively new trend of private companies running elections is the inability of election officials to provide adequate oversight.
“The election services company tells how the show is run,” he said, pointing out that those overseeing the election are often elected officials themselves, who may have very little or no IT expertise.
Nonetheless, he said, “the elected official, who does not know what is going on, is legally responsible” for the overall election results.
There would seem to be a perverse incentive if a hack were discovered by the private company not to report it or the extent of it to election officials, so as to not hurt the company’s reputation and its potential opportunity to run future contests.
At the same time, the motivation is high for hostile actors (whether they be foreign powers, or political or business interests) to try to rig the outcome for their favored candidates or to simply sow seeds of distrust in the election process.
For his documentary “Kill Chain,” Hursti traveled to Juneau, Alaska, to investigate the hacking of the state’s Division of Election’s website on election night in November 2016.
The Associated Press reported that election officials determined the India-based hacker did not manipulate any information.
Hursti believes — based on a review of documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request — the truth in terms of the extent of the breach was “likely … clearly worse” than what the officials admitted.
“There was no containment in effect,” he said in the documentary.
He then went to India to speak with the hacker, known as CyberZeist, who took credit for the breach.
“I had root access, which just not only allowed me access to make small changes, but granted me full access of the system,” including the real-time data to the presidential race, the hacker said.
“I could have made any changes in the system,” he added. “I could alter any data, any vote.”
CyberZeist chose not to out of fear of being caught, recounting that he reasoned, “Do not edit anything. Just see what is going on. Then we can plan or take out or execute our next steps.”
Hursti thinks the hacker likely deployed a cyber tool in the Alaska Division of Elections website.
CyberZeist told the documentarian that Russian interests are seeking to scan state election servers throughout the United States.
The AP reported in September 2017 that the Department of Homeland Security notified 21 states that attempts had been made to hack their election systems during 2016 election cycle.
Among those hit were the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Ramsland explained that cyberattackers, whether they are working for the Russian government or some other entity, would likely just need to focus their efforts on a few key states like these to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential race.
“So if you want to change the presidency of this country, all you really have to do is put your whole team on making sure that your guy wins precinct by precinct in at least a semi-believable number in five states and probably only the big metropolitan areas of five states,” he said.
Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma is among the bipartisan supporters of some key election reforms, most importantly the ability to verify the results of a contest.
Last summer, Lankford spoke out in opposition to Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s “Election Security Act” on the grounds that it contained a partisan provision, but agreed with her on the importance of paper ballots and other cyber protection measures.
“Every state, every precinct, should be able to verify [an election], to be able to go to back to the people in their area and to say, ‘This is how you voted, and this is how we verified the number is accurate.'”
“It’s not just about the voting machine, or it’s not just about the piece of paper,” he added. “It’s how it’s counted, how it’s presented, how the unofficial results even go out from the state the night of the election. All those things matter.”
“Every state should have a system with a backup paper ballot,” Lankford said. “Every state, every precinct. Right now, that’s not so.”
Hursti and Ramsland agreed that human readable paper ballots must be required.
Some states and precincts use voting machines that generate paper ballots with barcodes, which of course are not human readable and therefore subject to manipulation.
This is true even if the ballot shows in writing the candidates chosen because what the barcode says is what is counted.
The experts also called for risk-limiting audits of election results, regardless of how large the margin of victory.
Such audits are conducted by randomly doing a hand recount of paper ballots until a preset statistical measure of certainty is achieved when the reviewers can conclude the computer-tabulated election results reflect the actual votes cast.
“Elections are an American event,” Lankford observed. “They have partisan results, but the act of voting is an American event.”
“Election security should never be a partisan issue,” he went on to state.
“This is about the preservation of our democracy, and it’s something both parties — in fact independents, Republicans, Democrats, all parties — agree, that this should be a central issue for us.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-29--Prominent Actor Irrfan Khan of ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ and ‘Jurassic World’ Dies

Irrfan Khan , a veteran character actor in Bollywood movies and one of India ’ s best-known exports to Hollywood , has died .
He was 54 .
Khan played the police inspector in “ Slumdog Millionaire ” and the park executive Masrani in “ Jurassic World.
” He also appeared in “ The Amazing Spider-Man ” and the adventure fantasy “ Life of Pi.
” Khan died Wednesday after being admitted to Mumbai ’ s Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani hospital with a colon infection .
“ Irrfan was a strong soul , someone who fought till the very end and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , ” a statement released by the actor ’ s team said .
TRENDING : Black Veteran GOP Challenger Has a Message for Democrats Who Voted for Maxine Waters Khan made his screen debut in the Academy Award-nominated 1988 drama “ Salaam Bombay !
” — a tale of Mumbai ’ s street children .
He later worked with directors Mira Nair , Wes Anderson and Ang Lee .
Khan in 2018 was diagnosed with a rare neuroendocrine cancer and underwent months of treatment in the United Kingdom .
“ I trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in a heartfelt note after he broke the news of his battle with cancer .
Khan won a number of film awards in India , including a 2012 Indian National Film Award for best actor for his performance in “ Paan Singh Tomar , ” a compelling tale of a seven-time national champion athlete who quit India ’ s armed forces to rule the Chambal ravines in central India .
Khan received an Independent Spirit Award for supporting actor in 2006 for the Indian-American drama “ The Namesake ” and a viewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 for his role in the Indian romantic drama “ The Lunchbox.
” Khan also starred in the Hamlet-inspired “ Haider , ” a Bollywood film set in militarized Himalayan Kashmir .
Tributes came from Bollywood , including from fellow actor Amitabh Bachchan , who said Khan was an “ incredible talent ” and “ a prolific contributor to the World of Cinema.
” Khan “ left us too soon , ” Bachchan wrote on Twitter .
Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that “ Khan ’ s demise is a loss to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview with The Associated Press in 2018 , Khan said : “ I ’ ve seen life from a completely different angle .
You sit down and you see the other side and that ’ s fascinating .
I ’ m engaged on a journey.
” Khan ’ s last Bollywood movie , “ Angrezi Medium , ” a sequel to one of his biggest hits , “ Hindi Medium ” ( 2017 ) , was released before India went into a lockdown in March because of the coronavirus pandemic .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer and producer Sutapa Sikdar , and sons , Babil and Ayan .
The Associated Press contributed to this report .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Irrfan Khan, a veteran character actor in Bollywood movies and one of India’s best-known exports to Hollywood, has died. He was 54.
Khan played the police inspector in “Slumdog Millionaire” and the park executive Masrani in “Jurassic World.”
He also appeared in “The Amazing Spider-Man” and the adventure fantasy “Life of Pi.”
Khan died Wednesday after being admitted to Mumbai’s Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani hospital with a colon infection.
“Irrfan was a strong soul, someone who fought till the very end and always inspired everyone who came close to him,” a statement released by the actor’s team said.
Khan made his screen debut in the Academy Award-nominated 1988 drama “Salaam Bombay!” — a tale of Mumbai’s street children.
He later worked with directors Mira Nair, Wes Anderson and Ang Lee.
Khan in 2018 was diagnosed with a rare neuroendocrine cancer and underwent months of treatment in the United Kingdom.
“I trust, I have surrendered,” he wrote in a heartfelt note after he broke the news of his battle with cancer.
Khan won a number of film awards in India, including a 2012 Indian National Film Award for best actor for his performance in “Paan Singh Tomar,” a compelling tale of a seven-time national champion athlete who quit India’s armed forces to rule the Chambal ravines in central India.
Khan received an Independent Spirit Award for supporting actor in 2006 for the Indian-American drama “The Namesake” and a viewers’ choice award at the Cannes festival 2013 for his role in the Indian romantic drama “The Lunchbox.”
Khan also starred in the Hamlet-inspired “Haider,” a Bollywood film set in militarized Himalayan Kashmir.
Tributes came from Bollywood, including from fellow actor Amitabh Bachchan, who said Khan was an “incredible talent” and “a prolific contributor to the World of Cinema.”
Khan “left us too soon,” Bachchan wrote on Twitter.
T 3516 – .. just getting news of the passing of Irfaan Khan .. this is a most disturbing and sad news .. ?
An incredible talent .. a gracious colleague .. a prolific contributor to the World of Cinema .. left us too soon .. creating a huge vacuum ..
Prayers and duas ? — Amitabh Bachchan (@SrBachchan) April 29, 2020
Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that “Khan’s demise is a loss to the world of cinema and theatre.”
In an interview with The Associated Press in 2018, Khan said: “I’ve seen life from a completely different angle. You sit down and you see the other side and that’s fascinating. I’m engaged on a journey.”
Khan’s last Bollywood movie, “Angrezi Medium,” a sequel to one of his biggest hits, “Hindi Medium” (2017), was released before India went into a lockdown in March because of the coronavirus pandemic.
He is survived by his wife, television writer and producer Sutapa Sikdar, and sons, Babil and Ayan.
The Western Journal has reviewed this Associated Press story and may have altered it prior to publication to ensure that it meets our editorial standards.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-30--Fauci Calls Promising Results of Coronavirus Drug Trial ‘Quite Good News’

Bubbly optimism and happy talk are not qualities that Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , has shared with the American people during his weeks of helping to lead America ’ s fight against the coronavirus .
But on Wednesday , an energetic Fauci called the development of a drug to treat those suffering from COVID-19 “ quite good news.
” ‘ Gilead Sciences announced what it described as positive results from a drug called remdesivir .
That led to the drug being discussed during a White House event during which President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts , met with Gov .
John Bel Edwards of Louisiana .
Trump was asked about the drug and deferred to Fauci .
“ Well , it seems to be good news .
I ’ d rather have you guys maybe respond to it a little bit , but it seems to be good news .
Gilead has — it ’ s really one of a number of companies that are coming up with some pretty positive things .
But , I mean , I can only tell you what ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly a positive .
We ’ ll have to see how it all works out , ” Trump said .
Fauci then called the development “ quite good news ” and explained why .
TRENDING : Pennsylvania Takes Hundreds of 'Probable ' COVID Deaths Off Books After Coroners Come Forward “ The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut , significant , positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery , ” he said .
“ This is really quite important for a number of reasons , and I ’ ll give you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant .
If you look at the time to recovery being shorter in the remdesivir arm , it was 11 days , compared to 15 days , ” he said .
“ So that ’ s something that — although a 31 percent improvement doesn ’ t seem like a knockout 100 percent , it is a very important proof of concept .
Because what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus .
And I ’ ll give you an example in a moment of why we think , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ The mortality rate trended towards being better , in the sense of less deaths in the remdesivir group , ” he continued , noting that the data still needed further analysis .
“ The reason why we ’ re making the announcement now is something that I believe people don ’ t fully appreciate : Whenever you have clear-cut evidence that a drug works , you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know so that they can have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials that are taking place now have a new standard of care.
” Fauci said the study that showed promise will now get the needed scrutiny .
“ So , bottom line : You ’ re going to be hearing more details about this .
This will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be peer-reviewed appropriately .
But we think it ’ s really opening the door to the fact that we now have the capability of treating .
And I can guarantee you , as more people , more companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to get better and better , ” he said .
Fauci noted that the new drug is not a vaccine to ward off the virus , but medicine to help those already infected .
However , he was upbeat about multiple drug companies working on vaccines .
“ We ’ re going to have a lot of shots on goal when it comes to vaccines , ” he said .
Trump noted the significance of the drug .
“ It ’ s a beginning ; it means you build on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a building block .
You know , just as a building block , I love that .
But certainly , it ’ s a positive .
It ’ s a very positive event from that standpoint , ” he said .
Fauci was later asked when the drug might become broadly available .
“ Well , right now , it ’ s happening that the [ Food and Drug Administration ] , literally as we speak , is working with Gilead to figure out mechanisms to make this easily available to those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the market , it will obviously have to be approved by the FDA for licensure .
And the FDA is very well aware that this is something that is very important , so I ’ m sure they ’ re going to be moving very expeditiously .
But I can ’ t give you a date , ” he said .
In response to a question from Trump , Fauci said there are “ a lot of different permutations ” in terms of the drug ’ s use .
“ This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the time to discharge .
So it ’ s unclear yet , right now , from this study , whether or not it would be better for early .
We don ’ t know .
It could be .
But we only make statements about what we ’ ve proven .
And the only thing that ’ s been proven now is in hospitalized patients , ” he said .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Bubbly optimism and happy talk are not qualities that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has shared with the American people during his weeks of helping to lead America’s fight against the coronavirus.
But on Wednesday, an energetic Fauci called the development of a drug to treat those suffering from COVID-19 “quite good news.”‘
Gilead Sciences announced what it described as positive results from a drug called remdesivir. That led to the drug being discussed during a White House event during which President Donald Trump, along with several health experts, met with Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana. Trump was asked about the drug and deferred to Fauci.
“Well, it seems to be good news. I’d rather have you guys maybe respond to it a little bit, but it seems to be good news. Gilead has — it’s really one of a number of companies that are coming up with some pretty positive things. But, I mean, I can only tell you what’s been reported to me. It’s certainly a positive. We’ll have to see how it all works out,” Trump said.
Fauci then called the development “quite good news” and explained why.
“The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” he said.
“This is really quite important for a number of reasons, and I’ll give you the data. It’s highly significant. If you look at the time to recovery being shorter in the remdesivir arm, it was 11 days, compared to 15 days,” he said.
“So that’s something that — although a 31 percent improvement doesn’t seem like a knockout 100 percent, it is a very important proof of concept. Because what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus. And I’ll give you an example in a moment of why we think, looking forward, this is very optimistic,” he said.
Are you encouraged by these latest developments in potential treatments? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 91% (162 Votes) No: 9% (17 Votes)
“The mortality rate trended towards being better, in the sense of less deaths in the remdesivir group,” he continued, noting that the data still needed further analysis.
“The reason why we’re making the announcement now is something that I believe people don’t fully appreciate: Whenever you have clear-cut evidence that a drug works, you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know so that they can have access. And all of the other trials that are taking place now have a new standard of care.”
Fauci said the study that showed promise will now get the needed scrutiny.
“So, bottom line: You’re going to be hearing more details about this. This will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be peer-reviewed appropriately. But we think it’s really opening the door to the fact that we now have the capability of treating. And I can guarantee you, as more people, more companies, more investigators get involved, it’s going to get better and better,” he said.
Fauci noted that the new drug is not a vaccine to ward off the virus, but medicine to help those already infected. However, he was upbeat about multiple drug companies working on vaccines.
“We’re going to have a lot of shots on goal when it comes to vaccines,” he said.
Trump noted the significance of the drug.
“It’s a beginning; it means you build on it. I love that, as a building block. You know, just as a building block, I love that. But certainly, it’s a positive. It’s a very positive event from that standpoint,” he said.
Fauci was later asked when the drug might become broadly available.
“Well, right now, it’s happening that the [Food and Drug Administration], literally as we speak, is working with Gilead to figure out mechanisms to make this easily available to those who need it. With regard to getting to the market, it will obviously have to be approved by the FDA for licensure. And the FDA is very well aware that this is something that is very important, so I’m sure they’re going to be moving very expeditiously. But I can’t give you a date,” he said.
In response to a question from Trump, Fauci said there are “a lot of different permutations” in terms of the drug’s use.
“This is in hospitalized patients. And the endpoint was the time to discharge. So it’s unclear yet, right now, from this study, whether or not it would be better for early. We don’t know. It could be. But we only make statements about what we’ve proven. And the only thing that’s been proven now is in hospitalized patients,” he said.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-30--CNN’s Stelter Blasted Hydroxychloroquine for Virus, But Turns Out His Wife Uses It – Just Not for CO

CNN’s Stelter Blasted Hydroxychloroquine for Virus, But Turns Out His Wife Uses It – Just Not for COVID

CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter is about the furthest thing from an unbiased journalist the establishment media has to offer — and he continues to prove it .
As President Donald Trump and many Fox News hosts — whom Stelter loves to bash — touted the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19 , Stelter joined his CNN colleagues and used his platform to attack the president .
It was tough to fathom why Stelter would want to pour cold water on a ray of hope for many as the drug has shown promise around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ most objective commentator on the matter .
As Stelter has mentioned multiple times on air , his wife uses the drug for her own condition ( unrelated to the virus ) .
Stelter has also said that the president and Fox News ’ promotion of hydroxychloroquine could potentially cause a rush on sales of the drug .
TRENDING : Pennsylvania Takes Hundreds of 'Probable ' COVID Deaths Off Books After Coroners Come Forward Newsweek reported on April 1 that the FDA had begun warning consumers that hydroxychloroquine and the similar drug chloroquine , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in shortage ” due to a drastic increase in demand .
That shortage is exactly why Stelter has a conflict of interest .
And as someone who purports to cover the news objectively , he shouldn ’ t just have mentioned his wife ’ s use of the drug ; he should have refrained from covering the issue entirely .
In an April 22 segment of “ CNN Newsroom , ” host John King played a tape of the president and various Fox News personalities expressing hope about hydroxychloroquine .
After asking a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , King turned to Stelter .
“ As the doctor notes , we need more data , we need more evidence .
But in anxious times , people do sometimes look to people they trust for guidance , and we know there was a run on this drug , ” King said .
Stelter agreed with King and then mentioned that his wife takes the drug before commencing with his usual routine of attacking Fox .
“ Yes , and the millions of Americans who use this drug for approved purposes , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues and need this drug became worried they wouldn ’ t be able to get it because of the drug-pushing that was happening on Fox News and from the White House podium , ” he said .
RELATED : After Latest Tara Reade Twist , Biden Faces Swelling Criticism from the Left Stelter ’ s diatribe should have stopped before it began .
Even if he believes he can be impartial , the appearance of a conflict of interest should have prevented him from commenting on hydroxychloroquine at all .
But Stelter didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get in a few more jabs at his rival network .
“ You know , the president yesterday was asked about this new study , and he said he hadn ’ t seen the report and that may be because Fox News is barely talking about it because it doesn ’ t fit the narrative that was being promoted in late March and early April , ” he continued .
“ But recently , Fox has moved on .
They ’ ve stopped talking about this drug and the hope that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to other quick fixes and other pro-Trump narratives.
” “ You know , this network , these stars , they think they ’ re helping the president , but they ’ re actually hurting him when they push these narratives .
And ultimately , they ’ re misleading their viewers , and that ’ s why it is so troubling .
Why would we ever think a Fox News star or any president should be promoting a drug ?
It ’ s outlandish , ” he said .
It ’ s ridiculous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a network that employes such anti-Trump shills as Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon , to talk about another network being “ outlandish.
” He and his colleagues literally make their living by attacking the president and Fox News , with whom Stelter appears to be obsessed .
What ’ s actually outlandish is for Stelter to continue commenting on the subject of hydroxychloroquine , considering the appearance of a blatant conflict of interest .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter is about the furthest thing from an unbiased journalist the establishment media has to offer — and he continues to prove it.
As President Donald Trump and many Fox News hosts — whom Stelter loves to bash — touted the use of hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for COVID-19, Stelter joined his CNN colleagues and used his platform to attack the president.
It was tough to fathom why Stelter would want to pour cold water on a ray of hope for many as the drug has shown promise around the world. But he wasn’t exactly the most objective commentator on the matter.
As Stelter has mentioned multiple times on air, his wife uses the drug for her own condition (unrelated to the virus).
Stelter has also said that the president and Fox News’ promotion of hydroxychloroquine could potentially cause a rush on sales of the drug.
Why today’s WH briefing was disturbing: presidential misinformation from the podium; dangerous and unconfirmed claims about hydroxychloroquine; gratuitous shots at rival politicians. pic.twitter.com/dHqUtCzkKC — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) April 4, 2020
Newsweek reported on April 1 that the FDA had begun warning consumers that hydroxychloroquine and the similar drug chloroquine, both antimalarial medications, were “currently in shortage” due to a drastic increase in demand.
That shortage is exactly why Stelter has a conflict of interest. And as someone who purports to cover the news objectively, he shouldn’t just have mentioned his wife’s use of the drug; he should have refrained from covering the issue entirely.
Do you think Stelter should stop talking about hydroxychloroquine? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (3016 Votes) No: 2% (69 Votes)
In an April 22 segment of “CNN Newsroom,” host John King played a tape of the president and various Fox News personalities expressing hope about hydroxychloroquine. After asking a question of a doctor on the show, King turned to Stelter.
“As the doctor notes, we need more data, we need more evidence. But in anxious times, people do sometimes look to people they trust for guidance, and we know there was a run on this drug,” King said.
Stelter agreed with King and then mentioned that his wife takes the drug before commencing with his usual routine of attacking Fox.
“Yes, and the millions of Americans who use this drug for approved purposes, including my wife, people who have autoimmune issues and need this drug became worried they wouldn’t be able to get it because of the drug-pushing that was happening on Fox News and from the White House podium,” he said.
Stelter’s diatribe should have stopped before it began. Even if he believes he can be impartial, the appearance of a conflict of interest should have prevented him from commenting on hydroxychloroquine at all.
But Stelter didn’t stop there; he had to get in a few more jabs at his rival network.
“You know, the president yesterday was asked about this new study, and he said he hadn’t seen the report and that may be because Fox News is barely talking about it because it doesn’t fit the narrative that was being promoted in late March and early April,” he continued.
“But recently, Fox has moved on. They’ve stopped talking about this drug and the hope that it could be beneficial. They have moved on to other quick fixes and other pro-Trump narratives.”
“You know, this network, these stars, they think they’re helping the president, but they’re actually hurting him when they push these narratives. And ultimately, they’re misleading their viewers, and that’s why it is so troubling. Why would we ever think a Fox News star or any president should be promoting a drug? It’s outlandish,” he said.
It’s ridiculous for Stelter, a man who works for a network that employes such anti-Trump shills as Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, to talk about another network being “outlandish.”
He and his colleagues literally make their living by attacking the president and Fox News, with whom Stelter appears to be obsessed.
What’s actually outlandish is for Stelter to continue commenting on the subject of hydroxychloroquine, considering the appearance of a blatant conflict of interest.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-30--Pelosi Snaps at Reporter Over Double Standard Question: ‘Joe Biden Is Joe Biden’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed a question about the sexual assault allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday , stating in part , “ Joe Biden is Joe Biden.
” The California Democrat was fielding questions from reporters when she was asked if Democrats are applying a different standard to the sexual assault allegation against Biden than they did to the accusations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 .
“ How do Democrats square with the idea that they ’ re essentially , they ’ re standing by Biden but they ’ re using a comparatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Kavanaugh ?
” Washington Examiner reporter Kerry Picket asked .
“ I respect your question and I don ’ t need a lecture or a speech , ” Pelosi snapped .
“ Here ’ s the thing : I have complete respect for the whole MeToo movement , I have four daughters and one son , and there ’ s a lot of excitement around the idea that women will be heard , ” she continued .
TRENDING : Biden Chooses Man Famously Accused of 'Sexual Assault ' To Help Find Female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process , and the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden.
” Pelosi continued , stating that that she is confident in supporting Biden and saying — in reference to the allegation by former Biden Senate staffer Tara Reade , who claims he sexually assaulted her in 1993 — that there “ was never any record of this.
” “ I am so proud , the happiest day for me this week was to support Joe Biden for president of the United States , ” Pelosi said , adding that Biden is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe that he will be a great president of the United States .
He is the personification of hope and optimism and authenticity , for our country , a person of great values .
“ So I want to remove all doubt in anyone ’ s mind .
I have great comfort level with the situation as I see it , with all the respect in the world for any woman who comes forward , with all the highest regard for Joe Biden , and that ’ s what I have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pelosi answered a question about the sexual assault allegation against Biden earlier Thursday from CNN ’ s Alisyn Camerota .
“ Do you think that it is time for Vice President Biden to address this head-on himself ?
” Camerota asked .
“ Well , I have great sympathy for any women who bring forth an allegation , ” Pelosi said .
RELATED : Pelosi 'Satisfied ' with Biden 's Response to Accusation , Claims She 's a 'Strong Supporter of the Me Too Movement' “ I ’ m a big , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think it has been a great , made a great contribution to our country .
“ And I do support Joe Biden .
I ’ m satisfied with how he has responded , ” she said .
After being pressed , Pelosi added she is “ impressed with the people who worked for him at the time saying they absolutely never heard one iota of information about [ the allegation ] .
“ Nobody ever brought forth a claim or had anybody else tell them about such a claim , ” Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have an important election at hand , one that is , I think , one of the most important ones that we ’ ve had.
” Pelosi formally endorsed Biden on Monday , despite the fact the the presumptive Democratic nominee is facing an increasingly credible accusation of sexual assault from Reade .
Questions about Reade ’ s allegation have become problematic for high-profile Democrats , who largely dug in against Kavanaugh in 2018 .
Reade , who worked for Biden from late 1992 until August 1993 , has accused the then-senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digitally penetrating her during an unwanted sexual advance .
Biden ’ s campaign has denied the allegation .
Last month , Biden ’ s deputy campaign manager and communications director Kate Bedingfield told Fox News , “ Women have a right to tell their story , and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed a question about the sexual assault allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday, stating in part, “Joe Biden is Joe Biden.”
The California Democrat was fielding questions from reporters when she was asked if Democrats are applying a different standard to the sexual assault allegation against Biden than they did to the accusations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
“How do Democrats square with the idea that they’re essentially, they’re standing by Biden but they’re using a comparatively different standard [than they did] with Kavanaugh?” Washington Examiner reporter Kerry Picket asked.
“I respect your question and I don’t need a lecture or a speech,” Pelosi snapped.
“Here’s the thing: I have complete respect for the whole MeToo movement, I have four daughters and one son, and there’s a lot of excitement around the idea that women will be heard,” she continued.
“There’s also due process, and the fact that Joe Biden is Joe Biden.”
Pelosi continued, stating that that she is confident in supporting Biden and saying — in reference to the allegation by former Biden Senate staffer Tara Reade, who claims he sexually assaulted her in 1993 — that there “was never any record of this.”
“I am so proud, the happiest day for me this week was to support Joe Biden for president of the United States,” Pelosi said, adding that Biden is “a person of great integrity.”
Do you think the #MeToo movement is on life support now that Democrats are ignoring a credible allegation against Biden? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 97% (3154 Votes) No: 3% (101 Votes)
“I believe that he will be a great president of the United States. He is the personification of hope and optimism and authenticity, for our country, a person of great values.
“So I want to remove all doubt in anyone’s mind. I have great comfort level with the situation as I see it, with all the respect in the world for any woman who comes forward, with all the highest regard for Joe Biden, and that’s what I have to say about that,” Pelosi concluded.
Pelosi answered a question about the sexual assault allegation against Biden earlier Thursday from CNN’s Alisyn Camerota.
“Do you think that it is time for Vice President Biden to address this head-on himself?” Camerota asked.
“Well, I have great sympathy for any women who bring forth an allegation,” Pelosi said.
“I’m a big, strong supporter of the MeToo movement. I think it has been a great, made a great contribution to our country.
“And I do support Joe Biden. I’m satisfied with how he has responded,” she said.
After being pressed, Pelosi added she is “impressed with the people who worked for him at the time saying they absolutely never heard one iota of information about [the allegation].
“Nobody ever brought forth a claim or had anybody else tell them about such a claim,” Pelosi said.
“But, again, we have an important election at hand, one that is, I think, one of the most important ones that we’ve had.”
CNN’s Alisyn Camerota held Nancy Pelosi’s feet to the fire by pointing out that Joe Biden actually hasn’t directly and personally addressed Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations. pic.twitter.com/Y0m1CwQ7kO — MRCTV (@mrctv) April 30, 2020
Pelosi formally endorsed Biden on Monday, despite the fact the the presumptive Democratic nominee is facing an increasingly credible accusation of sexual assault from Reade.
Questions about Reade’s allegation have become problematic for high-profile Democrats, who largely dug in against Kavanaugh in 2018.
Reade, who worked for Biden from late 1992 until August 1993, has accused the then-senator from Delaware of kissing, groping and digitally penetrating her during an unwanted sexual advance.
Biden’s campaign has denied the allegation.
Last month, Biden’s deputy campaign manager and communications director Kate Bedingfield told Fox News, “Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-30--WaPo Falls Flat on Its Face in Attempt To Label Trump Abortion Statement ‘False’

How do you defend the indefensible ?
It is a question that Democrats and their media friends deal with on a daily basis .
And it was a question The Washington Post was faced with Tuesday when it attempted to fact check President Donald Trump .
The fact check was on a statement the president made about Democrats and late-term abortion , and even though the statement was factual , The Post ’ s fact-checker rated it false ( “ Three Pinocchios ” ) .
This was Trump ’ s statement that was examined : “ Virtually every Democrat candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late-term abortion , ripping babies straight from the mother ’ s womb , right up until the very moment of birth.
” The president was correct , but Rizzo did mental gymnastics to rate his statement false .
TRENDING : Biden Chooses Man Famously Accused of 'Sexual Assault ' To Help Find Female VP “ Most abortions are performed in the earlier stages of pregnancy .
About 1 percent happen after the fetus reaches the point of viability , ” Rizzo said .
“ In short , the president is describing something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for anyway , ” he said .
Rizzo went on to say former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , “ does not take such a sweeping position ” on abortion .
He also said Sens .
Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — two of the last candidates to drop out of the race — favor having no restrictions on abortion , and he admitted the president has not made the statement since Biden took control of the race on Super Tuesday .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supports abortion until the time of birth.
” He said almost all the Democratic candidates did so .
Rizzo ’ s argument that late-term abortions are rare is irrelevant to Trump ’ s statement that Democrats support it .
Abortions in the case of rape are rare , but that is used as an argument to keep all abortions legal .
“ A Trump campaign official said ‘ almost all of the 2020 Democratic candidates refused to endorse any limits on abortion , even when pressed , ’ ” Rizzo said .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this line from a New York Times story that mentioned former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and Hawaii Rep Tulsi Gabbard : “ Asked if they supported restrictions after 24 weeks — roughly when a healthy fetus can survive outside the womb , though viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy — only Mr. Sestak said yes .
( Ms. Gabbard , who did not complete the survey , has also said she supports restrictions in the third trimester . )
” RELATED : WaPo Tries To Fact Check Trump on WHO Claim , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there was “ more to the story , ” saying Sanders and Warren both said “ they would codify Roe .
And they both co-sponsored the Women ’ s Health Protection Act , which prohibits states from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.
” Um , OK ?
And how does that make what the president said false ?
Rizzo made the case for Trump ’ s statement being accurate .
In his conclusion , Rizzo wrote , “ The statistics hardly justify Trump ’ s description of babies being ripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has repeated dozens of times .
About 1 percent of abortions happen after the point of viability , so the cases at issue in this debate would be relatively rare .
“ Trump also grossly exaggerated .
Supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions .
The Democrats in the presidential race appeared to be somewhat divided on abortion regulations , with some saying they favored no restrictions and others saying they favored limits based on settled law and Supreme Court rulings .
They were not all marching in lockstep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never went that far .
“ It ’ s good to see that the president seems to have dropped this line after Super Tuesday , but the instances before that get Three Pinocchios .
We hope he doesn ’ t dust off this line when the rallies resume.
” Three Pinocchios means “ Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions .
This gets into the realm of ‘ mostly false.
’ But it could include statements which are technically correct ( such as based on official government data ) but are so taken out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” How are the president ’ s claims “ mostly false ” or even misleading ?
Trump told the truth about the stated views of the candidates at the time , yet Rizzo found a way to claim the president was lying .
The best Rizzo could do was say that Biden does not support those extreme measures , but Trump never directly accused Biden of supporting abortion until the time of birth .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

How do you defend the indefensible? It is a question that Democrats and their media friends deal with on a daily basis.
And it was a question The Washington Post was faced with Tuesday when it attempted to fact check President Donald Trump.
The fact check was on a statement the president made about Democrats and late-term abortion, and even though the statement was factual, The Post’s fact-checker rated it false (“Three Pinocchios”).
This was Trump’s statement that was examined: “Virtually every Democrat candidate has declared their unlimited support for extreme late-term abortion, ripping babies straight from the mother’s womb, right up until the very moment of birth.”
The president was correct, but Rizzo did mental gymnastics to rate his statement false.
“Most abortions are performed in the earlier stages of pregnancy. About 1 percent happen after the fetus reaches the point of viability,” Rizzo said.
“In short, the president is describing something that rarely happens and that no Democrat is calling for anyway,” he said.
Rizzo went on to say former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, “does not take such a sweeping position” on abortion.
He also said Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — two of the last candidates to drop out of the race — favor having no restrictions on abortion, and he admitted the president has not made the statement since Biden took control of the race on Super Tuesday.
Is The Washington Post biased against President Trump? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (442 Votes) No: 1% (3 Votes)
The president never said, “Joe Biden supports abortion until the time of birth.” He said almost all the Democratic candidates did so.
Rizzo’s argument that late-term abortions are rare is irrelevant to Trump’s statement that Democrats support it. Abortions in the case of rape are rare, but that is used as an argument to keep all abortions legal.
“A Trump campaign official said ‘almost all of the 2020 Democratic candidates refused to endorse any limits on abortion, even when pressed,’” Rizzo said.
The fact-checker wrote that the Trump official pointed to this line from a New York Times story that mentioned former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak and Hawaii Rep Tulsi Gabbard:
“Asked if they supported restrictions after 24 weeks — roughly when a healthy fetus can survive outside the womb, though viability varies from pregnancy to pregnancy — only Mr. Sestak said yes. (Ms. Gabbard, who did not complete the survey, has also said she supports restrictions in the third trimester.)”
But Rizzo insisted that there was “more to the story,” saying Sanders and Warren both said “they would codify Roe. And they both co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act, which prohibits states from banning abortion before the fetus reaches viability.”
Um, OK? And how does that make what the president said false? Rizzo made the case for Trump’s statement being accurate.
In his conclusion, Rizzo wrote, “The statistics hardly justify Trump’s description of babies being ripped from the womb — a horror story he has repeated dozens of times. About 1 percent of abortions happen after the point of viability, so the cases at issue in this debate would be relatively rare.
“Trump also grossly exaggerated. Supporting abortion rights is not the same as supporting abortions. The Democrats in the presidential race appeared to be somewhat divided on abortion regulations, with some saying they favored no restrictions and others saying they favored limits based on settled law and Supreme Court rulings. They were not all marching in lockstep, as Trump invariably claims. Biden never went that far.
“It’s good to see that the president seems to have dropped this line after Super Tuesday, but the instances before that get Three Pinocchios. We hope he doesn’t dust off this line when the rallies resume.”
Three Pinocchios means “Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of ‘mostly false.’ But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading.”
How are the president’s claims “mostly false” or even misleading? Trump told the truth about the stated views of the candidates at the time, yet Rizzo found a way to claim the president was lying.
The best Rizzo could do was say that Biden does not support those extreme measures, but Trump never directly accused Biden of supporting abortion until the time of birth.
We rate this fact-checker a partisan con man.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-04-30--Rapper P. Diddy Warns Biden Black Vote Won’t Be Automatic: ‘I Will Hold the Vote Hostage if I Have T

Rapper P. Diddy Warns Biden Black Vote Won’t Be Automatic: ‘I Will Hold the Vote Hostage if I Have To’

Rap music icon Sean Combs issued a stern public warning Wednesday to the Democratic Party and its presumptive 2020 presidential nominee , Joe Biden , regarding the black vote .
Appearing last week on British model Naomi Campbell ’ s YouTube show “ No Filter with Naomi , ” Combs , better known by the stage name P. Diddy , leveled allegations that the black vote in America has consistently been “ taken for granted ” throughout history by those who have benefited from it most : Democrats .
This November , things needed to be different .
If Combs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , the rapper said , a clear and honest commitment will have to be made to the black community by left-wing politicians .
Otherwise , he intended to “ hold the vote hostage.
” “ The black vote is not going to be for free , ” Combs said in a clip that he posted to Instagram on Tuesday .
“ We ’ re going to have to see some promises , you know .
What are we getting in return for our vote ?
Nothing has changed for black America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 'Sexual Assault ' To Help Find Female VP “ In order for us to vote for Biden , we can ’ t be taken for granted like we always are because we ’ re supposed to be Democrats or because people are afraid of [ President Donald ] Trump .
It ’ s whoever is going to take care of our community .
Whoever wants to make a deal , it ’ s business at this point , ” Combs said .
“ So , we want to know very clearly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he wanted to build a wall , Biden needs to make it clear that he is going to change the lives and quality of life of black and brown people , or else he can ’ t get the vote.
” “ I will hold the vote hostage if I have to , ” he added .
The statement received a mixed response from fans and fellow entertainers .
While a great many seemed to applaud Combs in the comments section for his willingness to expect more from politicians desperately seeking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and far less kind , alleging the rapper was no different than those who intended to vote for the incumbent president .
Combs was quick to defend his remarks , however , posting a Twitter screen shot which showed former Bernie Sanders campaign official Tezlyn Figaro explaining the statement was “ NOT an endorsement for Trump , ” but a demand for stronger political representation of the black community .
“ To whom it may concern it ’ s called BLACK LEVERAGE , ” the rapper wrote in the comments of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Reporter Over Double Standard Question : 'Joe Biden Is Joe Biden' Combs has been known to speak out regarding the minority vote throughout his lengthy career as a musician and public figure .
According to People , Combs ’ attempts to move the dial on voting in the black community began as early as 2004 , when the rapper branched out into politics with his Citizen Change campaign .
Combs encouraged widespread engagement in that year ’ s presidential election between incumbent Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Die ” as his newly founded organization worked to get young people and members of minority communities registered to vote .
The rapper went on to appear at a 2008 get-out-the-vote rally for Barack Obama in Los Angeles .
By 2016 , however , Combs would tell CNN he felt the black community had gained little ground during the Obama administration , and had been “ shortchanged ” by the eight-year Obama presidency .
He did not go public with a presidential endorsement that year , despite claiming Trump was a friend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Rap music icon Sean Combs issued a stern public warning Wednesday to the Democratic Party and its presumptive 2020 presidential nominee, Joe Biden, regarding the black vote.
Appearing last week on British model Naomi Campbell’s YouTube show “No Filter with Naomi,” Combs, better known by the stage name P. Diddy, leveled allegations that the black vote in America has consistently been “taken for granted” throughout history by those who have benefited from it most: Democrats.
This November, things needed to be different. If Combs is going to vote Democratic this time around, the rapper said, a clear and honest commitment will have to be made to the black community by left-wing politicians.
Otherwise, he intended to “hold the vote hostage.”
“The black vote is not going to be for free,” Combs said in a clip that he posted to Instagram on Tuesday. “We’re going to have to see some promises, you know. What are we getting in return for our vote? Nothing has changed for black America.
“In order for us to vote for Biden, we can’t be taken for granted like we always are because we’re supposed to be Democrats or because people are afraid of [President Donald] Trump. It’s whoever is going to take care of our community. Whoever wants to make a deal, it’s business at this point,” Combs said.
“We can’t trust politicians,” the rapper continued.
“So, we want to know very clearly, just like Trump made it very clear that he wanted to build a wall, Biden needs to make it clear that he is going to change the lives and quality of life of black and brown people, or else he can’t get the vote.”
“I will hold the vote hostage if I have to,” he added.
The statement received a mixed response from fans and fellow entertainers.
While a great many seemed to applaud Combs in the comments section for his willingness to expect more from politicians desperately seeking the black vote, others were less supportive, and far less kind, alleging the rapper was no different than those who intended to vote for the incumbent president.
Combs was quick to defend his remarks, however, posting a Twitter screen shot which showed former Bernie Sanders campaign official Tezlyn Figaro explaining the statement was “NOT an endorsement for Trump,” but a demand for stronger political representation of the black community.
“To whom it may concern it’s called BLACK LEVERAGE,” the rapper wrote in the comments of his original post.
Combs has been known to speak out regarding the minority vote throughout his lengthy career as a musician and public figure.
According to People, Combs’ attempts to move the dial on voting in the black community began as early as 2004, when the rapper branched out into politics with his Citizen Change campaign.
Do you expect more black voters to leave the Democratic Party in 2020? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 96% (369 Votes) No: 4% (16 Votes)
Combs encouraged widespread engagement in that year’s presidential election between incumbent Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry, championing the slogan “Vote or Die” as his newly founded organization worked to get young people and members of minority communities registered to vote.
The rapper went on to appear at a 2008 get-out-the-vote rally for Barack Obama in Los Angeles.
By 2016, however, Combs would tell CNN he felt the black community had gained little ground during the Obama administration, and had been “shortchanged” by the eight-year Obama presidency.
He did not go public with a presidential endorsement that year, despite claiming Trump was a friend of his.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.