Never Back Down Bakers.

Never Bake Naked too, accidents can happen.

Does This Hillary Email on Benghazi Suggest Her Actions Were Grounded in Executing a Clean 2016 Campaign?

Our friends at Twitchy posted about it first, but a new email has dropped concerning former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s actions after the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that led to three deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. It occurred in September of 2012, weeks away from the election. The Obama White House’s rallying cry was that al-Qaeda was on the run. They were wrong. The Obama administration said this attack was a “spontaneous” reaction to a YouTube video released months prior to the attack. It was a lie. Judicial Watch has been hell on wheels regarding their fight for disclosure about this incident and many more under the Obama administration with their FOIA requests and countless lawsuits for documents to be released. The revelation that the Obama administration scrubbed talking points only added to the intrigue that there was some sort of cover-up in the weeks leading up to a critical election for then-President Obama.

The email Judicial Watch obtained was sent by Jacob Sullivan, Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff and senior adviser, to the former first lady’s address 18 days after the attack. Then-Chief of Staff Cheryl Mill was cc’d on the exchange. Again, I know some of you already knew what was up with the previous disclosures from this horrific attack, but more information is leeching out.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/12/30/shocker-sharyl-attkisson-drops-new-email-showing-hillary-knew-what-benghazi-was-n2558707

How Not to Argue with Bill Barr

By RAMESH PONNURU

December 30, 2019 6:24 PM

I’m open to criticisms of Attorney General Bill Barr, and have highlighted one or two in this space. But Katherine Stewart and Caroline Fredrickson have written an attack on him for the New York Times that seems to me a model of how not to engage in political debate. The op-ed is not persuasive, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

The authors begin:

Why would a seemingly respectable, semiretired lion of the Washington establishment undermine the institutions he is sworn to uphold, incinerate his own reputation, and appear to willfully misrepresent the reports of special prosecutors and inspectors general, all to defend one of the most lawless and corrupt presidents in American history?

Let’s assume that this is a reasonable question: that Barr really has undermined the institutions he is sworn to uphold, etc. On that assumption, wouldn’t the most plausible explanation be that Barr has done these things without believing that he has done them? That, for example, he has undermined the rule of law while believing himself to be its servant. Yet at no point do S&F ever stop to consider this possibility. They give no sign of seeing that Barr might sincerely deny that Trump is one of the most lawless and corrupt presidents in American history, or that any intelligent person could sincerely deny it. Their assertions are taken as givens.

Their own answer to their question rests heavily on a concept of “religious nationalism” that they do not do much to explain.

Mr. Barr has embraced wholesale the “religious liberty” rhetoric of today’s Christian nationalist movement. When religious nationalists invoke “religious freedom,” it is typically code for religious privilege.

Generally when people are using a “code,” they know that the surface meaning of what they are saying is not the real meaning. S&F offer no evidence that Barr secretly shares their own view of what religious liberty is and isn’t and is merely cynically using the phrase to conceal his drive for privilege. Nor, of course, do they mount any kind of argument that the views Barr professes to believe about religious liberty are actually wrong. Their assertions will have to suffice.

S&F also claim that “Mr. Barr’s constitutional interpretation is simply window dressing on his commitment to religious authoritarianism.” You can guess how much evidence and argumentative support is brought forward to justify this charge–but again, the language of “commitment” is ambiguous, as it is compatible with Barr’s believing the propositions that the authors describe and condemn as “religious nationalism.”

If an intelligent person of good will could believe any of those propositions, as Stewart and Fredrickson do not consider, they have been given no reason to lessen their belief in them. Those who come predisposed to hate and fear Bill Barr will, on the other hand, come away confirmed, at least if they are not too reflective.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-op-ed-attacks-bill-barr/

Here’s how the NY Times misled readers with its headlines and tweets in 2019

WRITTEN BY ZACHARY PLEAT, PUBLISHED 12/30/19 9:38 AM EST

The New York Times, long referred to as the “newspaper of record,” has failed multiple times in 2019 in the way it covered President Donald Trump, the 2020 presidential race, and other issue areas in its headlines and tweets. Media critics, experienced journalists, and other experts called out some of the Times’ headlines and tweets for pushing misinformation, framing the story in line with right-wing talking points, or using euphemisms in place of accurate descriptions.

The New York Times helped Trump spread misinformation about the Russia probe

On March 24, the Times posted a tweet repeating Trump’s lies verbatim that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election “was an illegal takedown that failed” and Mueller’s report was “a complete and total exoneration.” A Times article headline from the same day also misleadingly claimed that Mueller’s investigation found no Trump-Russia conspiracy.

In April, the Times helped spread right-wing falsehoods by credulously repeating a claim by Attorney General Bill Barr during a congressional hearing, which he later walked back, that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign. On July 25, the Times published a piece on the special counsel’s congressional testimony titled “Lack of Electricity in Mueller Testimony Short-Circuits Impeachment.” The headline was criticized by The American Independent’s Oliver Willis for treating the hearing like it was entertainment.

The Times pushed GOP lies on abortion and deceptively made Trump’s rhetoric appear moderate

A February 5 tweet reporting on Trump’s comments on abortion during his State of the Union address quoted a benign-sounding line from him: “Let us work to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.” The tweet failed to address Trump’s smears and lies about Democratic politicians and their support for abortion rights legislation, such as his deranged claim that a Democratic bill in Virginia would allow medical providers to “execute a baby after birth.”

In mid-May, the Times wrote a tweet highlighting Republicans’ “grisly claims that Democrats promote ‘birth day abortions’ and are ‘the party of death.’” Media critic Jamison Foser told the Times that it was spreading Republicans’ lies. The Times later deleted the tweet, saying the tweet did not clarify that “some of the Republicans’ claims” were “false or misleading,” an error Foser said the Times should not have made in the first place.

The Times repeatedly failed to call out Trump and one of his advisers on their racist behavior

NY Times headline: Trump's tweet was condemned as racist. His response: No, they're the racists.

The Times gave Trump the headlines he wanted regarding his Ukraine scandal and impeachment

https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/heres-how-ny-times-misled-readers-its-headlines-and-tweets-2019