Connect with us

‘Are We Fake News?’: Kellyanne Conway Hammered by CNN’s Jake Tapper Over Trump’s ‘False, Offensive’ Attacks



Claims Trump’s Muslim Ban the Result of Insufficient Coverage of Underreported Attacks

After being banned by CNN for the past few days Kellyanne Conway was invited to speak with Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper Tuesday afternoon. A clearly less combative and more respectful Conway still managed to deliver false information but it was Tapper who won the show.

The anchor of “The Lead” and “State of the Union” point-blank asked Conway, “Are we fake news, Kellyanne?”

“I don’t think CNN is fake news,” Conway, breaking with her boss’ false pronouncement, stated. But immediately, unable to control herself, Conway moved into attack mode.

“I think there are some reports, everywhere, in print, on TV, on radio, in conversation, that are not well researched and are sometimes based on falseness,” Conway, who coined the term “alternative facts” when defending White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, and who lied about a “Bowling Green massacre” that never happened, said.

On that Bowling Green massacre lie, Conway claimed she “was misquoting.”

‘I should have said, ‘masterminds,’ and I’ve talked about all that,” she insisted. “But let me just say this on the broader point, we have a high regard for the facts.”

Any claim that the Trump administration has a “high regard for the facts” is provably false.

Tapper also hammered Conway over President Donald Trump’s lie that the media does not report on terror attacks, does not want to, and his suggestion that the press has some sort of an agenda for why they don’t report on terror attacks. The White House Monday evening released a list of 78 terror attacks it claimed were “underreported,” a way of walking back the President’s lie, but every single one had been reported on, many extensively, as Tapper noted.

“Kellyanne, CNN and other media organizations cover terrorism around the world all the time,” Tapper told the White House Counselor. “Saying that we don’t cover terrorism – that’s just false.”

Conway tried to cover for the president, claiming what he meant was terror attacks don’t get enough coverage, but that’s not the decision of the president to make, and by making that claim he is coming dangerously close to disrespecting the First Amendment. 

“But then she blamed Trump’s likely illegal and unconstitutional Muslim travel ban on what she claims is the lack of network news coverage of terror attacks, which makes zero sense.

“We just can’t allow ourselves to become inured,” Conway said, “to see it as the new normal. If we’re not covering all of the – many different – attacks, that they’re all ISIL inspired attacks, in this case, the ones that he was referring to in the list that was generated, then we want people to realize that’s what leads him to want extreme vetting from seven narrowly-proscribed countries in a very temporary way.”

So, Conway just said that because the president thinks the news media isn’t covering terror attacks enough, he wants his Muslim travel ban.

How does that make any sense?

Moments later, Tapper again slammed Conway for Trump’s lie that the media does not cover these stories because they don’t want to, and because they have some sort of an agenda.

“That’s what he was suggesting,” Tapper said strongly, “and it’s offensive given the fact that CNN and other media organizations have reporters in danger right now in war zones covering ISIS.”


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Donald Trump Guilty on All Counts in New York Criminal Trial



Donald Trump has been found guilty by a jury in the State of New York’s criminal prosecution on all 34 charges of falsifying business records to cover-up a conspiracy to assist his election to the presidency of the United States by unlawful means. He is the first American president in history to have been criminally charged, and now is the first to have been convicted of crimes. The ex-president’s efforts to hide payments of “hush money” to two women, a Playboy model and an adult film actress, to prevent the voters from learning of his affairs was central to the scheme.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution alleged Trump had “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”

Democrat Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election’s popular vote by nearly three million votes but the reality TV star and real estate magnate, as he was best-known at the time, won the Electoral College vote.

Trump, soon to be 78, could be sentenced to up to four years in prison but, if convicted, is expected ask to have the verdict set aside, and to appeal.

READ MORE: Chief Justice Refuses to Meet With Senate Judiciary Chairman Over Alito Scandal

Continue Reading


Chief Justice Refuses to Meet With Senate Judiciary Chairman Over Alito Scandal



Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over a court Democrats and government watchdogs say is riddled with corruption and ethics scandals, on Thursday once again refused to meet with the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and a Democratic Senator who for more than a decade has been working to reform the nation’s highest court.

Last week, after bombshell reports revealed Justice Samuel Alito, a Bush-43 appointee, had two insurrection-linked flags flying at two of his homes, Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sent the chief justice a letter requesting a meeting to discuss their call for Justice Alito to recuse from cases involving the January 6, 2021 insurrection, the 2020 election, and any cases involving Donald Trump. They also asked to meet to discuss the ongoing ethics scandals plaguing the Roberts Court, and the need for congressionally-mandated reforms.

“By displaying the upside-down and ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flags outside his homes, Justice Alito actively engaged in political activity, failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” the two Senate Democrats wrote. “He also created reasonable doubt about his impartiality and his ability to fairly discharge his duties in cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol. His recusal in these matters is both necessary and required.”

“Until the Court and the Judicial Conference take meaningful action to address this ongoing ethical crisis,” they warned, “we will continue our efforts to enact legislation to resolve this crisis.”

READ MORE: ‘Incompetently Bad’: Judge Cannon’s Latest Move ‘Approaching This Level of Stupid’

The Chief Justice cited the Court’s recently adopted code of ethics which some say merely codified existing behaviors without doing much to hold the Justices to the same standard every other judge who sits on the federal bench is required to observe.

“Members of the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual Justices decide recusal issues,” Chief Justice Roberts said in his letter to Durbin and Whitehouse.

Roberts insisted he was obligated to refuse to meet.

“I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting. As noted in my letter to Chairman Durbin last April, apart from ceremonial events, only on rare occasions in our Nation’s history has a sitting Chief Justice met with legislators, even in a public setting (such as a Committee hearing) with members of both major political parties present. Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances.”

“Moreover,” he added, “the format proposed – a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court – simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal, pointing to the Roberts letter, remarked: “John Roberts, again, has already spoken about Alito’s ethical failures. And Roberts is IN FAVOR of the corruption, not against it.”

READ MORE: Alito’s Opinion in a 2022 Christian Flag Case Flies in the Face of His Recusal Refusal

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading


‘Incompetently Bad’: Judge Cannon’s Latest Move ‘Approaching This Level of Stupid’



U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s latest move in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Espionage Act prosecution of Donald Trump appears to have at least one legal expert throwing up his hands in disbelief.

Back in February, Trump’s legal team claimed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful, as is the method of funding his office and his investigations.

“Neither the Constitution nor Congress have created the office of the ‘Special Counsel,'” Trump’s attorneys wrote, CBS News had reported, “arguing the attorney general did not have the proper authority to name Smith to the job.”

“The authority he attempts to employ as Special Counsel far exceeds the power exercisable by a non-superior officer, the authority that Congress has not cloaked him with,” they claimed. There are decades of precedence of Attorneys General appointing special counsels, special prosecutors, or independent counsels – possibly the most well-known being Ken Starr who investigated then-President Bill Clinton.

READ MORE: Alito’s Opinion in a 2022 Christian Flag Case Flies in the Face of His Recusal Refusal

CBS News also noted that “Garland cited numerous laws and regulations that he and other attorneys general have said confer necessary authority onto the selected prosecutors.”

Issuing her latest edict, Judge Cannon, who likely has already delayed the trial until after the 2024 election, responded to the Trump legal team’s challenge of Smith’s appointment on Thursday.

“Judge Cannon is giving Trump’s legal team and the government 12 days to tell her how the SCOTUS decision upholding the CFPB’s funding/appointment impacts Trump’s claim that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed and funded…,” reports Reuters’ Sarah N. Lynch, who covers the Justice Dept.

The CFPB is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled the methods by which it is funded are constitutional, overturning a lower court’s ruling.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Know Most Basic Rule’: Conway Blasts Cannon Over ‘Perplexed’ Reaction

Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, mocking Judge Cannon’s order, wrote:

“Jack Smith,

You have 12 days to tell me how what Martha-Ann Alito ate for lunch on May 30, 2024 affects your appointment as special counsel.


Judge Cannon”

He added, “We’re approaching this level of stupid,” and concluded, “Judge Cannon is incompetently bad.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.