CBS Presents Fraudulent Info on FL Vaccine Program

CBS Presents Fraudulent Info on FL Vaccine Program

CBS Presents Fraudulent Info on FL Vaccine Program. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis gestures during a news conference Sunday, April 4, 2021, at the Manatee County Emergency Management office in Palmetto, Fla. DeSantis declared a state of emergency Saturday after a leak at a large pond of wastewater threatened to flood roads and burst a system that stores polluted water. (AP Photo/Chris O’Meara)

CBS has been accused of deceptively editing a fiery exchange between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and a reporter for “60 minutes.” The exchange occurred during a recent press conference near Orlando with the governor speaking about the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

After the speech, a CBS reporter accused him of selecting Publix stores to distribute the vaccines due to pay-to-play schemes. However, “60 Minutes” omitted other context from the press conference in which he said the first commercial pharmacies to distribute the vaccine were CVS and Walgreens.

Meantime, the unedited version of the interview appears to have been removed from the “60-minutes” YouTube page.

MORE NEWS: Chris Christie: Biden is lying to the American people


Read full article on One America News Network

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!

Project Veritas Wins Lawsuit Against NYT

Project Veritas Wins Lawsuit Against NYT

Project Veritas Wins In Defamation Lawsuit Against New York Times.

A New York judge slammed The New York Times for blurring the lines between news and opinion. The paper had attempted to get a defamation lawsuit against it dismissed on the grounds that, among other things, its reporters were just expressing their personal opinions when they disparaged the investigative journalists at Project Veritas.

The judge ruled the lawsuit can go forward, finding that Project Veritas showed sufficient evidence that The New York Times may have been motivated by “actual malice” and acted with “reckless disregard” when it ran several articles against the investigative journalism outfit. 

Subscribe to The CubanAmerican Voice

Discover the news hidden and manipulated by the media!

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!

Read more: Project Veritas Wins Lawsuit Against NYT

Trump Lawyer: Media is Bloodthirsty

Trump Lawyer Media is Bloodthirsty
Trump Lawyer: Media is "Bloodthirsty".

One of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment lawyers accused media companies of trying to push a narrative instead of sticking to the facts, saying news outlets are “trying to divide this country.”

“What this country wants and this country needs is this country to come together,” Michael T. van der Veen said, adding that the reason why there is so much divisiveness is “because of the media.”

“The media wants to tell their narrative rather than just telling it like it is,” he said, adding that corporate media outlets have “to start telling the right story in this country” and that the “media is trying to divide this country” to make a profit.

“You are bloodthirsty for ratings. You’re asking questions that are already set up with a fact-pattern,” van der Veen said.

Subscribe to The CubanAmerican Voice

Discover the news hidden and manipulated by the media!

“When I watch the news, I watch one station, and it is raining. And I watch another station at the same time, and it is sunny. Your coverage is so slanted, it’s got to stop. You guys have to stop and start reporting more like PBS does rather than a TV news show that does not have any journalistic integrity at all. What I’m telling you is they doctored evidence,” he said, referring to managers at the Senate impeachment trial of Trump.

Michael van der VeenMichael van der Veen, attorney for former President Donald Trump, is seen in the Senate Reception Room before the fifth day of the Senate Impeachment trials for former President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington on Feb. 13, 2021. (Greg Nash/Getty Images)

He was responding to a comment and question from a CBS News reporter, Lana Zak, after the Senate acquitted Trump. She was asking him about what he described was doctored evidence that was presented by Democratic House managers during the trial, including the addition of a Twitter checkmark on a tweet and selectively edited videos of the Capitol riots.

The reporter, in her question, framed her question in a way that van der Veen suggested was an attempt to downplay the apparently doctored evidence.

“It’s not OK to doctor a little bit of evidence,” he said.

“Prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court of the Senate to put their case on, because they had not done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking. I think when we discovered it and were able to expose it and put it out, I think it turned a lot of senators,” van der Veen said.

Zak had interjected, “To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a check mark, a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes.”

According to a poll from Gallup last fall, only 9 percent of Americans trust mass media “a great deal” and 31 percent trust the media “a fair amount.” Meanwhile, 33 percent have no trust “at all” in the media, while 27 percent have “not very much trust” in the media, a poll says.

Jack PhillipsAuthor: Jack Phillips, Senior reporter

Jack Phillips, is a reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York. @jackphillips5

Read full article on THE EPOCH TIMES

Subscribe to The CubanAmerican Voice

Discover the news hidden and manipulated by the media!

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!

CNN Convicts Trump Before Trial

CNN Convicts Trump Before Trial

CNN Convicts Trump Before Trial. As New Impeachment Show Trial Begins, CNN Plays Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

Stephen Collinson, CNN’s White House “reporter,” really, really wants you to take this latest impeachment business seriously. “Trump’s trial set to rock Washington and echo through the ages,” he wrote this morning in an “analysis,” and his breathless excitement fairly leapt from the screen. The question at hand, he informs us, “is whether a president who loses reelection can get away with a violent coup attempt in a desperate bid to stay in power.” Is that what Trump did? Stephen Collinson thinks so, and CNN thinks so, and you better think so yourself, and pronto, or the arbiters of acceptable opinion will before too long come for you, too.

As the trial began, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Sinister) proclaimed that these were the gravest charges that have ever been brought against a president of the United States. Collinson is reading from the same playbook, and makes it absolutely clear what you are to believe: he bemoans “the former commander-in-chief’s likely acquittal for inciting a deadly mob assault on the Capitol” and claims that this acquittal “will echo through generations and may influence the outcome of some unknowable future test of US democracy.” He castigates the “consistent cowardice of Republicans who refuse to hold Trump to account.” He intones that the “events of the next week or so will inform the country’s capacity to move on from a traumatic presidency that left it as divided as at any time since the Civil War.”

Subscribe to The CubanAmerican Voice

Discover the news hidden and manipulated by the media!

The trial, he declares, begins “just a month after a now infamous day, when Trump greeted a huge crowd in Washington already primed for revolt by his weeks of false claims of election fraud. The subsequent invasion of the US Capitol during a joint session of Congress to certify Biden’s election victory led to five deaths and saw Trump fans parading unimpeded through the halls of the iconic building as lawmakers fled to safety.” And if “whipping up a rebellion against the peaceful transfer of US power is not an impeachable offense, nothing is.”

Trump’s Defense Brief Eviscerates the Democrats’ Case for Impeachment

Sure, buddy. Collinson extends his hysterical rant to 1,700 words, but never gets around to quoting Trump saying, in the speech in which he was supposedly inciting a violent coup attempt, that “today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country.” Of course, there are numerous historical precedents for leaders claiming to be protecting what they are in the process of destroying, so Trump’s saying that he wanted Congressional Republicans to safeguard the integrity of our elections doesn’t in itself mean that he didn’t want to destroy that integrity. But Collinson does not even deign to consider the possibility that Trump may have meant what he said.

Even worse, in his windy piece, Collinson never finds time to quote Trump saying: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” How this supposedly mindless, programmed mob is supposed to have understood “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” as “storm the Capitol and terrify AOC in the next building over” is unclear. Doubtless, only superior minds such as those of Collinson, Schumer, and their ilk can explain it.

Nor does Collinson bother to consider the implications of the increasing evidence that the Capitol riot that was supposed to have been incited by the lawless Trump was actually planned in advance, or that it began before the president was finished speaking, making it impossible that the mob acted on Trump’s dog-whistled orders.

And dog-whistled it must have been, since Trump made no call to commit any violence, much less to stage a coup, in his remarks on January 6 or at any other time. But Collinson, like Schumer and the other Democrats on the Hill in their rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred for Trump, has long since departed from anything remotely resembling genuine rules of evidence. Collinson summed up their approach when he stated: “The claim that a former president cannot be tried after being impeached relies on a hyper-literal reading of the Constitution.”

Of course. We reject a “hyper-literal” reading of the Constitution, and then we can see whatever we want in it. We ignore the legal definition of incitement, and try the former president based on the assumption that he meant, and was understood by his audience to mean, exactly the opposite of what he actually said. In one sense, Stephen Collinson is right: this impeachment fiasco is going to reverberate through the ages, and have untold negative consequences for free Americans. If a man can be tried on no grounds and no evidence, no one is safe. If the elites want to get you, they will. Donald Trump told us repeatedly that the real target wasn’t him, it was us. In the coming years, there will be numerous reasons to call that statement to mind.

Robert SpencerAuthor: Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster. Follow him on Twitter @jihadwatchRS. Like him on Facebook here.


Read full article on PJ MEDIA

Subscribe to The CubanAmerican Voice

Discover the news hidden and manipulated by the media!

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!

Cultural Marxism

Socialist War in US

Subscribe to The CubanAmerican Voice

Discover the news hidden and manipulated by the media!

 

subscribe

Subscribe FREE to TV Libertad

Privacy policy

 

Follow US

Facebook

Twitter