Part of what makes the media so powerful is the strength of their partisan observations and questioning. If they’d just admit that they’re actually Democrat activists instead of pretending to be impartial journalists, I’d at a minimum have to respect them as political adversaries. But they won’t admit that and choose instead to disgrace and destroy for generations to come the once respected free press, so they get none of my respect and in fact have earned their “enemy of the people” moniker.
And since their partisan observations and questioning aren’t always easy to combat, it’s worth sharing a few responses that I’ve not yet heard from Trump’s supporters and/or defenders.
COMPARING IMPEACHMENTS: TRUMP VS. CLINTON
In order to convince Americans that we should hate Trump as much as they do, one of the media’s key arguments is that Republicans impeached Bill Clinton “over sex” but won’t impeach Trump over what they claim are far more serious charges. Setting aside their weak case against Trump, it’s worth noting that despite their supposed reverence for the “#MeToo” era, the media are yet again reducing Bill Clinton’s sexual predation of a young intern as “merely sex.” Forget about the demonstrably clear evidence that he actually perjured himself; lied under oath about it. In 2019, thanks to the courage of many individuals, we all now recognize that sex and power are inextricably connected when they happen in the workplace between a superior and a subordinate. So despite the media claiming to be champions of the #MeToo movement and crusaders against sexual predation, in order to attack the one man who threatens the swamp where they survive as parasites, the media are downplaying and dismissing Clinton’s actions as “just sex.”
It’s a disgraceful whitewashing of both past and present that Trump supporters should be ready to point out when the media assert it.
THE “ADMIT IT OUT LOUD” HYPOCRISY
Regarding the media’s manufactured outrage over President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, a central GOP defense is that nothing the media alleges actually happened. The media are trying to remove Trump from office for a) withholding funds that weren’t withheld, and b) asking for investigations that didn’t occur. The media say it doesn’t matter if it happened or not. They infer that Trump had nefarious intentions, and claim that’s all they need to remove him from office and disenfranchise the 63,000,000 Americans who voted for him. And when you ask for evidence that President Trump had nefarious intent as implied by the media, they mockingly note that just because a person doesn’t explicitly articulate their bad behavior doesn’t mean that bad behavior wasn’t occurring.
Now consider the findings of the Horowitz report and the media’s reaction to it. Every bad behavior alleged to have happened by James Comey’s FBI did happen. In their well-documented zeal to destroy Trump consistent with their partisan leanings, the FBI repeatedly falsified evidence so they could spy on the Trump team and weaponize whatever they found for political gain. But because no one Horowitz interviewed actually admitted their personal feelings drove their clearly partisan errors and omissions, Horowitz was unable to claim “bias” predicated the bad behavior. And the media latched onto that conclusion emphatically and uncritically.
Now let’s compare.
Per the media, just because Trump didn’t expressly admit his nefarious intent doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. This, even though nothing the media allege actually happened.
But when it comes to the FBI’s investigation into Trump and his team, per the media, it’s obvious that political bias couldn’t possibly have played any role because nobody expressly admitted as much to Horowitz. This, even though every bad behavior that was alleged did actually happen.
So for Trump: Nothing they say he was after needed to actually happen for him to be guilty, and you’re a stupid flyover rube if you’re waiting for him to admit wrongdoing out loud before convicting him anyway.
But for the anti-Trump wing of the FBI: Despite indisputable proof they hated Trump and fabricated evidence multiple times to go after him, you’re a stupid flyover rube if you think “bias” played any role because no one ever admitted it out loud.
Trump: You’re stupid if you think someone needs to admit it out loud to be guilty.
FBI: You’re stupid if you think someone is guilty unless they admit it out loud.
Trump: Didn’t do what they allege but should be convicted anyway.
FBI: Did what was alleged but can’t be convicted because nobody said it out loud.
It’s a critical and glaring example of the disgraced corporate media’s own partisanship, and the hypocritical postures they’ll gladly assert in furtherance of that partisanship.
THE “WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THIS SET?” TALKING POINT
Cry bullies like Resistance Jake Tapper love trying to guilt Republicans and Trump supporters into doing what he wants. With respect to Ukraine, Resistance Jake and his media peers will often ask “What precedent does it set for the future if you say today that it’s okay for a President to seek foreign assistance in attacking his political opponents?” Like virtually every question the media ask, it’s a fully loaded one characterized in the most flagrantly partisan terms possible. And rather than indulge or dignify questions like those, here’s the one Trump supporters and defenders should be asking in return:
I reject the partisan premise of your question, and would ask you what precedent you’re setting if you say today that you’re not allowed to explore corruption and bad behavior, if that bad behavior happened beyond U.S. borders and was carried out by a Democrat candidate for President?
Because that’s really the standard here that the media has set. Their claim, laughably implausible but still widely accepted because the media’s reach is that strong and they’ve said it so much that it’s basically become true, is that if you’re a Democrat candidate for President then you’re automatically absolved from any scrutiny with respect to bad behavior that involves a foreign nation or government. In fact, per the media, not only are Democrats absolved scrutiny for bad behavior that might involve a foreign government — but anyone who seeks to assert that scrutiny is probably a criminal and definitely deserves to be impeached.
Again, it’s an important observation that I haven’t heard but Trump supporters and defenders should be armed with.
TRUMP DID NOTHING WRONG
But after three years of claiming that Trump must be attacked, resisted and ultimately impeached over accusations of corruption and 2016 election interference, they media are now saying he must be attacked, resisted and ultimately impeached because he sought to investigate corruption and 2016 election interference.
Let that sink in.
The best part is, he didn’t ask anyone to manufacture evidence (the way the media did with the Russia collusion hoax). He didn’t ask anyone to lie about their findings, and then promise to promote those findings despite the fact that they were obvious falsehoods (the way the media did with the Russia collusion hoax). He didn’t string together a network of bad actors across media and political machines that spanned the entire globe in order to concoct and then dishonestly push the false narrative (the way the media did with the Russia collusion hoax). If even the worst of the media’s current accusations are true, all he did was ask a taxpayer funded foreign nation to investigate corruption and 2016 election interference.
Trump didn’t ask for anyone to make anything up. He didn’t ask anyone to fabricate evidence. He didn’t ask anyone to do anything illegal or even unscrupulous. He asked for a serious investigation into serious allegations that, to quote the media when they’re attacking Trump, “every American should care about and be concerned with.” But because Trump promised to drain the swamp they and their parasite friends rely on, the media has successfully turned that entirely reasonable and innocuous request into a likely criminal and definitely impeachable offense.
That’s what I’ve got. This probably could’ve been 4 different articles but I combined them all into one because I’m short on time today and couldn’t care less about a variety of “clicks.” I just want to get the good information that I land on out there, and hope it will help in some small way as we continue our fight against the media in pursuit of a more free, stronger, and more united America.
Make sure to check out WhatFinger News for all the best right-minded media content from around the web.