A Bunch of ‘Bull’: CBS Drama Says BLM ‘Not Opposed to Police’

Network television has officially jumped the shark in its desperate efforts to defend the domestic terrorist organization Black Lives Matter. This week on CBS’s court drama Bull, an earnest defense attorney actually said with a straight face that BLM is “not opposed to the police.” In the episode, ‘Evidence to the Contrary,’ on Monday, April 19, an innocent young black man is mistakenly accused in the premeditated murder of a police officer. The young man has been active in the Black Lives Matter movement. In a pre-trial hearing, defense attorney Chunk Palmer (Christopher Jackson) requests that the trial “exclude any mention of my client’s involvement with Black Lives Matter or photographic evidence of affiliation with same.” When the prosecution argues that the “defendant has a lengthy and well-documented history of anti-police sentiment,” Palmer offers a ridiculous reply. Chunk Palmer: Your Honor, the A.D.A. is clearly mistaken in this regard. Black Lives Matter is not opposed to the police. Black Lives Matter is opposed to police killing black people. And the prosecution is trying to paint this organization and, by extension, my client, as being extremist and anti-law enforcement. All for the crime of simply affirming the value of black life. Black Lives Matter protest slogans include “ACAB” (“All Cops Are Bastards”) and “Fuck 12” (“Fuck the Police”). If those slogans are not “anti-law enforcement,” I do not know what is. And considering that in 2019 the number of unarmed black men fatally shot by police in the United States was a total of 14 people in a country of 330 million, BLM was never really about addressing a supposed epidemic of evil cops targeting black men. BLM was a corporate shakedown operation that used terror to rake in billions for its founders and Democrat Party entities.  The subject of violence at protests does come up at the pre-trial hearing, but Palmer pins such violence on those “not associated” with his client’s group. Chunk: Your Honor, we have a second motion for the court’s consideration. I ask that we exclude any reference to the defendant’s prior conviction for criminal mischief. My client was one of over 200 people arrested after a Black Lives Matter demonstration became overrun with people not associated with his group, but who were there solely for purpose of looting and vandalizing. He couldn’t afford counsel, he spent a night in jail. For these spurious charges to be used against him– it seems unjust and unfair, Your Honor.  Judge: Ms. Olson, care to respond?  Ms. Olson: Your Honor, as Mr. Palmer is well aware, if his client chooses to take the stand in his own defense, he can be cross-examined about prior crimes that bear on his credibility. To arbitrarily deny me the opportunity to share this conviction with the jury seems… How did you put it? Unjust and unfair? And it is. To the state, which believes Mr. Craddick is guilty of murdering a police officer in cold blood. And I would also point out to the court, violence against police officers seems to be a common feature of these rallies. And whether that violence is instigated by the sponsoring organization or outsiders who seize the opportunity to indulge in mayhem is beside the point. The point– the only point– is that Mr. Craddick has been arrested and convicted in the past. And that is something that the jury has a right to know.  Violence does indeed follow BLM wherever it goes. Its “mostly peaceful protests” have left a tragic trail of billions of dollars in damage, dozens dead, and many more injured. Such violence is likely to continue in the coming months, especially with the George Floyd murder trial wrapping up and people like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) encouraging more violence. But Hollywood cannot dare let that truth come out of the mouths of its shows’ main characters. The role of television heroes in 2020 and 2021 are to keep pushing the same lies that legacy media pushed all last year about BLM protests being “mostly peaceful.” And as the gaslighting continues, more innocent communities will be terrorized while BLM founders buy more mansions. This rant was brought to viewers in part by Charmin, Allstate and Cottonelle. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content.

Read more

WH’s Psaki Flips Out at FNC’s Fisher, Struggles to Answer Immigration Questions

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki began her week with a briefing so bad that there’s no way to go but up. On Monday’s episode, Psaki arrived with a short fuse and clashed with multiple reporters over basic immigration questions, and blew a basket at the Fox News Channel’s Kristin Fisher over the administration’s mixed messaging on the refugee cap. Fisher started with an admission of confusion and an open invitation to clear things up on the White House’s flip-flopping on what number of foreign refugees could be allowed entry into the U.S.: “I’m still just a little bit confused about what changed between 1:00 pm. on Friday and around 4:30p.m. on Friday to go from, ‘We’re not raising the refugee cap to, we are raising it by May 15th.’ What – what changed in those three and a half hours?”     By then, Psaki had fielded numerous questions on it, but Fisher merely wanted the record corrected. Instead, Psaki claimed “we never said we’re not raising the refugee cap” and the administration had always been clear. Fisher tried to interject, but Psaki demanded she be allowed to “finish” in order to reassert that there was never a doubt that they would maintain Trump immigration levels (though that’s exactly what they had said they would do). The FNC correspondent inquired about whether Psaki was actually claiming their clarification “had nothing to do with the pushback from some Democrats on Capitol Hill,” but instead of answer this yes or no question, Psaki said Fisher didn’t know what she was talking about (click “expand”): PSAKI: I don’t think you’ve articulated to me what our change in policy was? What was our change in policy from the morning to the afternoon? FISHER: The – the Executive Order from Friday morning said that the admission of up to 15,000 refugees remains justified. Period. And yes, there was a caveat that you could raise that cap later. But I mean, it expressively says that right there – PSAKI: That’s a pretty important caveat, that when we reached 15,000, a subsequent Presidential determination could be made. And again, the biggest challenge – FISHER: – then why – why did you need to make that clarification? PSAKI: – because people weren’t understanding what we were conveying to the public and weren’t conveying what we were trying to project to countries around the world and it’s incumbent upon us to make sure there’s an understanding of what the President’s policies are, what he’s trying to achieve, and what he feels morally is that we’re going to welcome in refugees from around the world. Change the policies from the past administration where they were not welcoming in refugees from the Middle East and Africa. And that was important to him to take that first step and move it forward. FISHER: The line said, “The admission of up to 15,000 refugees remains justified.” PSAKI: And the – FISHER: Can you understand how some people would interpret that? Psaki continued going the personal route (as she did back on March 17), bashing Fisher by saying “we all have a responsibility to provide all of the context” and cited an esoteric claim from Friday morning that Biden would later “increase admissions.” Fisher reasked the question about interparty pressure, but Psaki stuck to her insistence that “I don’t think you’ve articulated what our change in policy is.” This time, however, Fisher twice shot back that it’s “not my job to do that.” With this exchange having reached its end, Fisher closed by asking whether the White House as a new “official…position that there is indeed a crisis at the border” since President Biden had used the word “crisis” over the weekend. Showing Biden wasn’t actually in charge of his own executive branch, Psaki ignored that, suggesting it’s wrong and even offensive to suggest children fleeing “violence, economic hardships, and other dire circumstances is a crisis.” CBS’s Nancy Cordes was the first reporter to bring up the issue, but she merely noted the change from maintaining the 15,000 cap to increasing it by May 15th and brought up Biden’s “crisis” label in a follow-up. In both cases, Psaki offered 300-word-plus word salads that blamed the Trump administration for having left them with a lack of staffing to be clear-eyed about their initiatives. With CNN cameras again focused on the Derek Chauvin trial, Kaitlan Collins again broke free of the Zuckerville tried three times to get an answer about the disconnect from what Biden campaigned on to their initial announcement of continuing the Trump administration limit to breaking in their own. As with Cordes, Psaki offered lengthy answers that maintained the Office of Refugee Settlement was battered by the previous regime and “hollowed out,” so this one will need time to retool. No matter how many car analogies Psaki made, she didn’t make it better. Later, another reporter wondered whether Psaki’s shot at people misunderstanding them was geared at fellow Democrats, which led the White House official to do further mop-up duty. Back to Collins, she also deserved credit for asking Psaki about the inflammatory comments from Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) about the Chauvin trial (click “expand”): COLLINS: And you talked about how the White House is preparing for whatever that verdict is. Congresswoman Maxine Waters said over the weekend that, they need to – “we’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active. We’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know that we mean business.” Does the President agree with what she said about getting more confrontational? PSAKI: Well, I can speak to the President’s view. He has been very clear that he recognizes the issue of police violence against people of color, communities of color, is one of great anguish and it’s exhausting and quite emotional at times. As you know, he met with the Floyd family last year and has been closely following the trial, as we’ve been talking about, and is committed to undoing this long-standing systemic problem. His view is also that exercising First Amendment rights and protesting injustice is the most American thing that anyone can do. But as he also always says, protests must be peaceful. That’s what he continues to call for and what he continues to believe is the right way to approach responding.

Read more

Cuomo Lashes Out at ‘Rabid Right,’ Doubles Down on Killing White Kids

As NewsBusters documented, disturbed CNN Prime Time host Chris Cuomo went on a truly unhinged screed last Friday about how white kids needed to be killed in order to get movement on gun control and abolishing the police. Unfortunately, Cuomo opened Monday’s show by doubling down on his vile sentiment and lashing out at the “rabid right” that called him out, suggesting they didn’t care about black and poor people. Cuomo re-upped his demented position during his opening monologue by reminding viewers of his wild-eyed tirade from Friday. “Now, I don’t know if you were watching Friday night. But I said something that every one of you knows to be true,” he proclaimed, without evidence. “If what we’re seeing in these communities were happening to kids in suburbs, to adults in suburbs. If they suffered the same fate as we see too often with these black kids. If they died in policing situations, things would change.” Continuing with his narrative, he claimed that COVID, the global pandemic that caused the American economy to shut down, wasn’t taken seriously until it was hurting rich folks (which would include Fredo). Notice how Cuomo started to expand the narrative from just race to class as well: Look at heroin. Prescription opioids. Meth. In poor areas, “bad habits, bad families.” Suburbs, “we have a major crisis. We must fight addiction.” Laws, legislation, help, crisis, politics. Do you know how many black girls go missing every year? They don’t become household names. They’re not the center of major manhunts like when they’re affluent whites. Even COVID. Once it was ravaging middle or upper-class communities, well after the poor had got hit and hit hard. That’s when it became a crisis. Cuomo was not living in reality, unless that’s what his brother, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) did to his state.     “It’s obvious, right? No. It is only obvious for the reasonable,” he declared, his face becoming more contorted as he worked himself up into another roid rage to lash out at the right. “On the rabid right, it was weaponized as a threat, what I said. ‘See? They want your kids to die. They want white kids to die to end policing problems.’” Cuomo once claimed he was “black on the inside,” but he apparently underwent a transformation to white again to defend himself. “Now, look. On its face, that’s absurd. I’m white. Why would I want that,” he rhetorically asked. He’s the same guy that had been a vocal supporter of the left-wing domestic terrorist group Antifa and encouraged Black Lives Matter riots during the summer of 2020. Later on in the A-block, Cuomo was speaking with liberal CNN commentator Van Jones and former Baltimore Deputy Police Commissioner Anthony Barksdale when claimed the right “weaponizes” his words because they were fine with George Floyd’s death: But there is a reason why the right weaponizes words like mine, looks at situations like this and says these people have a problem. Looks at what happens with George Floyd and said “this is not an example of a bad white guy. It is an example of a bad black guy.” And they are every bit as invested in that argument and people who are asking for change. The world doesn’t revolve around you, Chris. You’re a bad-faith actor who can’t think beyond partisan hackery. One could side with Floyd, think police reform was needed, and think your comments were abhorrent. It seems you were right about one thing: “This has become the battleground for the ugliest politics of division.” Chris Cuomo’s unhinged and dangerous ramblings were made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Nutrisystem and  Panera Bread. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the biased news they fund. The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time
April 19, 2021
9:03:51 p.m. Eastern (…) CHRIS CUOMO: This has become the battleground for the ugliest politics of division. Now, I don’t know if you were watching Friday night. But I said something that every one of you knows to be true. If what we’re seeing in these communities were happening to kids in suburbs, to adults in suburbs. If they suffered the same fate as we see too often with these black kids. If they died in policing situations, things would change. Look at heroin. Prescription opioids. Meth. In poor areas, “bad habits, bad families.” Suburbs, “we have a major crisis. We must fight addiction.” Laws, legislation, help, crisis, politics. Do you know how many black girls go missing every year? They don’t become household names. They’re not the center of major manhunts like when they’re affluent whites. Even COVID. Once it was ravaging middle or upper-class communities, well after the poor had got hit and hit hard. That’s when it became a crisis. It’s obvious, right? No. It is only obvious for the reasonable. On the rabid right, it was weaponized as a threat, what I said. “See? They want your kids to die. They want white kids to die to end policing problems.” Now, look. On its face, that’s absurd. I’m white. Why would I want that? But this is not about the facts. It’s about fear. These people on the fringe want you afraid. They want you to fear diversity and being replaced. (…) 9:09:46 p.m. Eastern CUOMO: But there is a reason why the right weaponizes words like mine, looks at situations like this and says these people have a problem. Looks at what happens with George Floyd and said “this is not an example of a bad white guy. It is an example of a bad black guy.” And they are every bit as invested in that argument and people who are asking for change. (…)

Read more

CBS Attacks Trial Judge for Rebuking Maxine Waters’ Call to Violence

In strong comments during the closing arguments in the Derrek Chauvin trial on Monday, Judge Peter Cahill rebuked radical Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA) for calling on Black Lives Matter to be more violent if the jury returned a not guilty verdict. And like clockwork, the CBS Evening News framed Judge Cahill as the problem, even the aggressor by claiming he was “lashing out” at Waters and perhaps working with the defense team. Following a segment on the trial’s closing arguments in general, CBS anchor Norah O’Donnell stepped in to defend the radical Congresswoman. “And Jamie, something extraordinary happened after the jury left to deliberate. The judge lashing out at a U.S. congresswoman. Even mentioning the possibility, a verdict could be overturned in the future,” she teed up correspondent Jamie Yuccas. Yuccas’ first move was to downplay and brush over what Waters said to the BLM mob. “Wow, it was something. California Democrat Maxine Waters was with protesters in Brooklyn Center this weekend and she said ‘I hope we get a verdict that’s guilty, guilty, guilty. If we don’t, we have to get more confrontational,’” she said. From there, Yuccas seemed to suggest that Judge Cahill was working with Chauvin’s defense team because he “openly told the defense the comments could open the door to an appeal if Dereck Chauvin is convicted and then have the whole trial overturned.”     Her claim that the Judge’s comments on a possible appeal were “surprising” was misleading. And he wasn’t working with the defense either, he was stating the fact that Waters’ comments could be seen as jury intimidation: find him guilty or they burn down the Minneapolis. But while CBS was busy suggesting Judge Cahill was the problem, all he said was that politicians needed the respect the rule of law and the co-equal judicial branch of government. “I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that it is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judicial branch in our function,” he said to the courtroom. “I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect the co-equal branch of government.” He added: “Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don’t think it is prejudiced with additional material that would prejudice the story.” How was that controversial in any way? In a bit of a contrast, on NBC Nightly News, correspondent Gabe Gutierrez gave a very quick rundown of the situation without attacking the Judge: Over the weekend, Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California said that protesters need to get “more confrontational” if there was a not guilty verdict. The judge today said that “disrespectful” comments from elected officials were “abhorrent.” On the other hand, ABC’s World News Tonight completely obfuscated Waters’ call for violence by not mentioning it at all. This defense of Congresswoman Waters’ call for violence from Black lives Matter was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Norton Antivirus and Prevagen. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the biased news they fund. CBS Evening News has also asked people to “text Norah” at this number: (202) 217-1107. The transcript is below, click “expand” to read: CBS Evening News
April 19, 2021
6:36:14 p.m. Eastern (…) NORAH O’DONNELL: And Jamie, something extraordinary happened after the jury left to deliberate. The judge lashing out at a U.S. congresswoman. Even mentioning the possibility, a verdict could be overturned in the future. Explain what happened. JAMIE YUCCAS: Wow, it was something. California Democrat Maxine Waters was with protesters in Brooklyn Center this weekend and she said “I hope we get a verdict that’s guilty, guilty, guilty. If we don’t, we have to get more confrontational.” The judge called that disrespectful to the rule of law, and in a surprising move openly told the defense the comments could open the door to an appeal if Dereck Chauvin is convicted and then have the whole trial overturned. Norah. O’DONNELL: Just stunning. Fox News Channel’s The Five
April 19, 2021
5:09:41 p.m. Eastern (…) JUDGE PETER CAHILL (Hennepin County): I’m aware of the media reports. I’m aware that Congresswoman Waters was talking specifically about this trial and about the unacceptability of anything less than a murder conviction, and talk about being confrontational. But you can submit the press articles about that. This goes back to what I have been saying from the beginning, I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that it is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judicial branch in our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect the co-equal branch of government. Their failure to do so, I think, is abhorrent, but I don’t think it is prejudiced with additional material that would prejudice the story. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not, in any way, a prejudice to the event beyond the articles that we are talking specifically about the facts of this case. A congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot. Anyway. So, the motion for mistrial is denied. (…) NBC Nightly News
April 19, 2021
7:05:27 p.m. Eastern (…) LESTER HOLT: Gabe, after the jury left today, the judge also said the defense might have grounds for appeal because of what a congresswoman said. What do we know about that? GABE GUTIERREZ: Yeah, that’s right, Lester. Over the weekend, Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California said that protesters need to get “more confrontational” if there was a not guilty verdict. The judge today said that “disrespectful” comments from elected officials were “abhorrent.” Meanwhile, there are more demonstrators here tonight outside of the courthouse, Lester.

Read more

NEW NewsBusters Podcast: CNN Covered Up Being Pelted in the Head by Protesters

On CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, CNN host Brian Stelter finally acknowledged a viral video showing protesters pelting a crew member in the head with a water bottle (followed by the man tripping and falling). CNN reporter Miguel Marquez, who was on the scene, said he was also hit in the head by a protester’s water bottle, but mysteriously suggested that “I cannot blame them for being angry,” since that would somehow disparage their left-wing pain.  Even the chyron downplayed this violence into a “tense moment” for the CNN employees. Most of us would have stronger words for it if someone threw a bottle at our heads.  What’s amazing here is that Acosta’s Army at CNN have consistently argued that conservative media criticism will cause them physical harm, but when they’re actually harmed by leftists, they say they can’t “blame them” for the “tense moment.” They love talking about “police brutality,” but does anyone use the term “protester brutality”? CNN made much more of a fuss at Minnesota police arresting reporters, which in normal circumstances shouldn’t happen. They touted a ACLU press release insisting Minnesota had a “First Amendment problem.” CNN host Jim Scuitto compared Minnesota to Iran and China. None of them had a stern word for protesters throwing water bottles or full soup cans or bricks.  Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Read more