Lib Paper Embarrassingly Contradicts Own Article While Trying To Take Down GOP Candidate

Some eagle-eyed Washington Post readers were confused Wednesday morning upon reading an article that seemed at odds with the publication’s own research. The article’s headline left little question regarding the current status of its subject: Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

“Lagging in polls, Huckabee takes a leap of faith,” the print edition’s headline declared.

As Breitbart noted, an online version of the same story carried a different – and more accurate – headline: “Mike Huckabee, looking for a niche, woos blacks in GOP primaries.”

Writer Philip Rucker acknowledged Huckabee’s past success among black voters but relegated him to “the second tier” of GOP primary candidates.

Some, including Breitbart’s Alex Swoyer, wondered how describing Huckabee as a “second tier” candidate “lagging” in the polls squared with the newspaper’s recent poll placing the former Arkansas governor in the top quartile of a crowded 16-candidate field.

The Washington Post/ABC poll showed Donald Trump with a commanding lead and Huckabee in fourth place behind Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.

Regardless of Huckabee’s standing this early in the primary, however, Rucker ended his report on the candidate’s stop at a predominantly black South Carolina church by emphasizing the impact his message is having on audiences.

“I’m a Democrat,” local Nathaniel Pugh said, “but I might cross the line to vote for him. We can talk till we’re blue in the face, but until our hearts get right, there will be racism. For Gov. Huckabee to come into our little town and talk about this, that’s huge. He got my attention.”

Is the mainstream press trying to sabotage GOP candidates? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Trump’s Lawyer Makes Even Donald Look Tame With Intense Tirade Against Liberal Site

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s fiery retorts to his detractors have become popular fodder for news outlets covering the raucous 2016 presidential primary campaign. While Trump’s rhetoric has been brash and bold, however, his lawyer recently provided a glimpse of his attack dog capabilities.

As Western Journalism reported, The Daily Beast recently published an article dredging up a more than 20-year-old quote from Trump’s ex-wife, Ivana, in an ostensible attempt to depict him as a sexual abuser.

In the piece, authors Tim Mak and Brandy Zadrozny included attorney Michael Cohen’s fierce, and occasionally profane, reaction to the report.

“You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’” he said, “and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it.”

Cohen went on to taunt the reporter, telling Mak that if he wants to ruin his life “at the age of 20,” he would be happy to make that happen.

“I think you should go ahead and write the story that you plan on writing,” he said. “I think you should do it. Because I think you’re an idiot. And I think your paper’s a joke, and it’s going to be my absolute pleasure to serve you with a $500 million lawsuit, like I told [you] I did it to Univision.”

The Daily Beast article has since been updated to include Ivana Trump’s reaction to the story – and support for her ex-husband:

I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together have raised three children that we love and are very proud of. I have nothing but fondness for Donald and wish him the best of luck on his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president.

Was The Daily Beast’s article unfair? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Clinton Tells New York Times To Change Story. And They Do It.

So, there is ANOTHER career-ending Hillary Clinton scandal in the news. Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s emails. Read the full story in the New York Times.

Wait, did I say “career-ending?” What I meant to say was, should be career-ending but will probably never be covered because the media wants to attend Clinton’s cocktail parties.”

What’s interesting is that this story is apparently so bad, Hillary’s people called the New York Times and told them to change it.

Which they, of course, did:

Politico reports:

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.”

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

Yes, the same New York Times that stands by their Marco Rubio has a luxury boat story changed this because Hillary yelled at them.

Because journalism.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The NY Times Just Did Something Stunning At Hillary’s Request, Immediately Paid A Big Price

Feedback from fellow reporters has been less than stellar after it was revealed that the New York Times made significant edits (including changing the headline) to a story it wrote about two inspector generals’ requests that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation regarding the use of a private email server by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Politico reports that the original headline ran by the Times Thursday was “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.” However, that headline was changed sometime after midnight to the less damning “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

Likewise, the lead sentence was changed from saying that the probe would be “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state,” to “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

One of the writers of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained to Politico early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, released a statement on Twitter on Friday: “Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

Mediaite’s Alex Griswold points out: “What [Merrill] left off was that the story had been “significantly revised” because of pressure from the Clinton camp.”

In March at a press conference at the U.N., Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of sensitive information with her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

A former senior State Department official found Clinton’s claim lacked credibility. He told the New York Times in March: “’I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified…Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.’”

On Friday, the Times finally decided to inform its readers of the change to its Thursday story.

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Mediaite chronicled the critical responses of some in the media–from both Left and Right–to the Times’ “stealth edit.”

NY Times changes Hillary Story III - Tweet 1

Perhaps the hardest hitting rebuke came from Ricochet’s Stephen Miller:

NY Times changes Hillary Story - Tweet 1As reported by Western Journalism, one of Clinton’s claims from her U.N. press conference about her emails has been shown to be false. The State Department confirmed last month that she did not turn over all her work-related emails. Select Committee on Benghazi chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement regarding the revelation: “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

According to the Times, the Justice Department has not decided whether to open a criminal investigation into the transmission of classified material through Clinton’s private email accounts.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

RINO McCain Cost Us Four Years Of Obama…How Heroic Is That?

It didn’t take the Republican establishment—which already hates Donald Trump—long in declaring the end of his candidacy when he said about John McCain what all of us have been thinking for years.

McCain’s war hero status does NOT qualify him to be President.

Fox News is upset; Britt Hume is in high dudgeon; CNN hosts have worked themselves into orgasmic paroxysms chanting Trump’s candidacy is dead. The broadcast media is only slightly more circumspect because they are all making money covering the show, and they want the show to continue for a while.

There’s one radio talk show which even suggests that Trump will lose the GOP primaries and then endorse Hillary.

I’ll take the Vegas odds that he stays at number 1 for a while longer.

When CBS News quotes the Des Moines Register telling Trump to drop out of the show, you know that, in the words of the late Ed Sullivan, it’s a really big show!

Here are the facts:

Being a less-than-great fighter pilot and getting shot down over Hanoi does NOT make you any more of a hero than a GI who enlisted and defended the perimeter during the Tet Offensive, or someone who was called up from his or her Guard unit from their quiet life and sent to Iraq. Everybody who has served honorably is, by definition, a hero.

John McCain, however, used his POW status and the undeniable (and highly admirable) fact that he refused the North Vietnamese offer of an early release to lever himself into a Congressional career where he has lined up with Democrats enough to make about 4,000,000 Republican voters sit on their hands when he ran for President in 2008.

The point that Trump was inartfully making was that such behavior does NOT qualify one to be President.

And the Washington Hackockracy went nuts because they thought that this was their chance to rid themselves of Trump.

Ummmm. Don’t think so.

You see, all of those people who either held their nose and voted for McCain or sat on their hands and stayed home are just as frustrated with Washington political hacks today as they were then. Maybe, after two terms of Barack Obama, more. And, like it or not, Trump is talking to them, singing their song.

Can he win?

My guess is still no. But I could be wrong. And, at least he is engaging people who were fleeing the party in droves.

It was enough for the tea party folks to take over the House and have a significant tea party influence on the Senate.

Trump is not a long-time conservative in the mold of a Ronald Reagan or a Barry Goldwater. But he’s a pretty smart businessman whose strength is diagnosing and solving problems.

The baggage he carries is his public persona; but, for the moment, it is that very persona which is keeping him on top despite the media—the entire media including Fox—waging all out war on him.

I would not be surprised to see Fox try and keep him out of the first debate.

The Huffington Post refuses to cover him in their political section–although their entertainment section, where they do cover him, is always more interesting and a better read than what they call their political section.

I suspect that the only reason Fox doesn’t dare to exclude him from the debate is they would lose viewers in droves to the new Newsmax network.

At the end of the day, what you read, see, and hear has nothing to do with what voters actually want or think. It has to do with money.

When you see a Republican commentator screaming that Trump is a clown show who should be drummed out of the party, rest assured, that’s just part of the big media show. As long as people watch, as long as Trump’s ratings are good, the show continues. If the American voter tires of him and his message, then, in his own words, he’s fired.

If that doesn’t happen…

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth