Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Nunes’ Opening Statement: Media are ‘Puppets for the Democratic Party’

    Nunes’ Opening Statement: Media are ‘Puppets for the Democratic Party’

    “The media, of course, are free to act as Democrat puppets, and they’re free to lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters.”

    House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes destroyed the media in his opening statement at the third hearing of the impeachment inquiry.

    He criticized the way the media has handled the impeachment inquiry. He even accused them of taking direction from the Democrats.

    Nunes said:

    If you watched the impeachment hearings last week, you may have noticed a disconnect between what you actually saw and the mainstream media accounts describing it. What you saw were three diplomats, who dislike the President’s Ukraine policy, discussing second-hand and third-hand conversations about their objections. Meanwhile, they admitted they had not talked to the president about these matters, and they were unable to identify any crime or impeachable offense the President committed.

    But what you read in the press were accounts of shocking, damning, and explosive testimony that fully supports the Democrats’ accusations.

    He reminded everyone the media is acting the way they did during the Russian investigation. He described their behavior as a “fevered rush to tarnish and remove a president who refuses to pretend that the media are something different than what they really are-puppets for the Democratic Party.”

    Then Nunes brought up investigative journalist John Solomon, who has published many pieces on Ukraine in The Hill.

    The Hill stated “it would conduct a review of Solomon’s Ukraine reporting.” This happened three days after a Democrat on this committee told a Hill writer that she would stop speaking to The Hill because it had run Solomon’s stories, and she urged the writer to relay her concerns to Hill management.”

    Nunes also pointed out how the Democrats have changed their narrative after the phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky showed no quid pro quo:

    After trying out several different accusations against President Trump, the Democrats have recently settled on “bribery”—according to widespread reports, they replaced their “quid pro quo” allegation because it wasn’t polling well.

    But if the Democrats and the media are suddenly so deeply concerned about bribery, you’d think they would take some interest in Burisma paying Hunter Biden $83,000 a month. And you’d think they would be interested in Joe Biden threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees unless the Ukrainians fired a prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. That would be a textbook example of bribery.

    Nunes ended his statement:

    The media, of course, are free to act as Democrat puppets, and they’re free to lurch from the Russia hoax to the Ukraine hoax at the direction of their puppet masters. But they cannot reasonably expect to do so without alienating half the country who voted for the President they’re trying to expel.

    Americans have learned to recognize fake news when they see it, and if the mainstream press won’t give it to them straight, they’ll go elsewhere to find it—which is exactly what the American people are doing.

    Nunes Opening Statement by Anonymous 5DZYb5cl on Scribd


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    RandomCrank | November 19, 2019 at 9:00 pm

    Folks, the Ds are in a real pickle. Support for impeachment has not grown, and in fact appears to be fading, especially among independents. The only way it ever could’ve succeeded is if it broke out of the zealot base, and it is failing. If they don’t turn it around this week (fat chance) the hearings will end where they started: as a purely partisan stab in the dark.

    But I expect that the Ds will probably still impeach him, having let the idiot train gone too far to stop. And then McConnell will drag out a trial to inject maximum chaos into the D primaries.

    Now look at the D field. Biden is probably the biggest loser from the hearings. If they nominate him, Trump will shred him to pieces with his son’s corruption, not only in Ukraine but in China. Warren and Sanders? They would arrive with more baggage than Queen Marie’s 13-car art train out of Romania. If the Ds pick either one of them, the candidate might as well change the name to George(-ette) McGovern and be done with it.

    Mayor Pete? Folks, I happen to be gay myself, but I don’t have such a strong tribal identity that I will vote for him like a lab rat punching the bar for a pellet of food. Besides, I don’t count in that calculus. Who matters there is the 20% of the D electorate comprised of black voters, a great deal of whose participation is mediated through the black churches. Good luck, Pete. You’ll need it.

    That brings me to the biggest surprise so far to me, the seeming disintegration of Kamala Harris. She had the Clinton-Hollywood money. She had the media training. She was slippery enough to be a politician for either party. I still don’t count her out, though, because I expect a brokered D Convention in Milwaukee.

    It will not surprise me in the slightest if she’s the #2 on their ticket, and I won’t even be shocked if she winds up at the top. If that happens, the media will rush to her side, declaring that she wasn’t incendiary enough during the primaries and therefore qualifies as “steady” and “smart.”

    Meanwhile, as always, the condition of the economy in the spring of an election year has called the tune in every presidential election since WW2. The stock market is a good indicator of economic conditions 9 months out, and it’s been hitting new highs. There have been three Fed interest rates cuts this year.

    No matter who the Ds nominate, it would be a twilight struggle. But their chaos could push Trump’s margins a good deal higher than the 4% I’ve been thinking about.

      venril in reply to RandomCrank. | November 21, 2019 at 12:12 pm

      “… Now look at the D field. Biden is probably the biggest loser from the hearings. If they nominate him, Trump will shred him to pieces with his son’s corruption, not only in Ukraine but in China. …”

      Add to that this was to influence him, as Vice President. He knew full when what was going on and word was, he benefited from direct payments, as well as junior. I expect he solicited the deal or at least welcomed the offer.

      Slow Joe may see prosecution, if there’s still any justice left here.

    I agree with RandomCrank that Kamalatoe looked very good “on paper” but in the real world she proved herself overwhelmingly not ready for prime time, even compared to the rest of the dubious Dem field. I’d be very surprised if she were on either end of the ticket.

      RandomCrank in reply to FOAF. | November 20, 2019 at 12:44 pm

      I don’t want to argue too hard about Harris, because for one thing I’ve already been wrong about her. Boy oh boy, I thought she was a shoo-in given who supported her behind the scenes, and her generally slippery nature. It’s by far the biggest surprise of the political season as far as I’m concerned.

      Another surprise would be if the Ds were to have a sanity attack and drop impeachment. That’s what they ought to do, and of course they should’ve listened to Pelosi from the get-go and not let Adam Schiff usurp both her and the Judiciary Committee.

      But at this juncture, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll step off the ledge and climb back through the window. If they were to do it, their stalwarts (I hate that word, “base”) would go as crazy as the R stalwarts would if Trump endorsed a gun control package. I think the Ds are locked into their coming suicide gesture. Watch me be wrong.

      Just to be logical for a stupid second, impeachment makes no sense from any sentient angle. The legacy media are all for it, but public attitudes are locked into partisan affiliation. Independents are really hard to survey, so the most recent poll showing a 10-point drop in support among that cohort has to be taken not only with a grain of salt but the whole shaker.

      That much said, it’s also clear that support for impeachment is, at best, stagnant. I love to go to rodeos, so I’ll use an analogy: they opened the gate but the bull has stayed in the chute, and there will be no score on the ride.

      So why did the Ds do this? The best answer I can think of would go back to 1998 and the R impeachment of Bill Clinton. I thought then and still think that it was ridiculous; maybe not quite as empty as this one, but close enough for horseshoes. Not only that, but impeachment caused the Rs to lose ground in Congress.

      No matter; impeachment also put enough of a cloud over Clinton’s tenure to boost R chances in the ’00 presidential election. But for the ’98 impeachment, I think Gore would have been elected president. Similarly, the Benghazi hearings were the longest hand-wringing about 4 deaths in American history, but they did dig out Hillary’s e-mail scandal, without which she’d have been elected in ’16.

      So, this time around, the Ds know they’ll fail at impeachment but a) they want simple revenge for the ’98 impeachment and for the Benghazi hearings, and b) they think they can do enough damage to Trump to prevail in a close election. That’s the only rationale I can imagine that might involve anything more than the lizard-brain hatred of Trump by the Ds.

      By the way, I doubt these hearings have put the same sort of tarnish on Trump that impeachment put on Clinton or Benghazi put on his wife. The ’98 impeachment did involve misconduct, although IMO not nearly seriously enough to merit impeachment, and Benghazi wound up uncovering misconduct by his wife. The impeachment hearings seem to have mainly uncovered a bunch of people who don’t like Trump’s policies.

      Past that, I don’t think impeachment will stay on the radar screen long enough to do real damage. Even if McConnell drags out the trial to screw up the D primaries, there will not be the drip-drip-drip of new evidence like there was in Benghazi and Bill Clinton’s case, and of course in Watergate.

      So, in the end, I think this will be a swing and a miss on the homerun front, but some of the foul balls might do some damage to Joe Biden and Rudy Giuliani.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend