Groping Guardian Hit Piece Against Trump Debunked by Social Media Users Within Hours

hit piece against Donald Trump published in the Guardian Wednesday alleging that the real estate mogul groped former professional model Stacey Williams in 1993 was debunked within hours.

“A former model who says she met Donald Trump through the late sexual abuser Jeffrey Epstein has accused the former president of groping and sexually touching her in an incident in Trump Tower in 1993, in what she believed was a ‘twisted game’ between the two men,” the Guardian said Wednesday. “Williams claimed that Trump groped her breasts and buttocks.”

The claims, lobbed against the GOP candidate less than two weeks before the election, were quickly picked apart by social media users within hours.

A number of social media users pointed out that Epstein moved into the Wexler Mansion in New York City in 1996, three years after Williams claimed to be there.

Keep reading

TROUBLE IN PARADISE: Kamala Harris Gets Destroyed by CNN Panel Over Catastrophic Town Hall While Triggered Libs Unleash on ‘Entitled White Male’ Host Anderson Cooper

The reviews for Kamala Harris’s performance during last night’s town hall are coming in, and they are not pretty. Meanwhile, liberal fans of the flailing presidential candidates are turning their ire on one of their own for being too ‘mean’ to Harris.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Harris participated in a CNN town hall for undecided voters on Wednesday night. She fell apart completely under surprisingly tough questions from liberal host Anderson Cooper.

In one particularly embarrassing moment, Harris was reduced to a blubbering mess when pressed on the subject of the border crisis and the idea of a border wall.

Keep reading

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

The outlandish hit piece on Donald Trump published this week by Jeffery Goldberg at The Atlantic, which was immediately denied on the record by all the people who were in the room with Trump, isn’t just a shoddy smear that would never have passed muster in a newsroom 20 years ago.

It’s more than that. It’s part of a larger psy-op to justify mass post-election violence if Trump wins in November, to signal activists to reject the results of the election, to divide the military, and to coax an insurgency out of the radical left-wing base of the Democratic Party and unleash it on American cities.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ shocking remarks Wednesday on the steps of the Naval Observatory should be understood in this light. Citing comments quoted in The Atlantic from former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, Harris explicitly compared Trump to Hitler and claimed that if elected he will rule as a dictator and unleash the military on his domestic political opponents.

“He does not want a military that is loyal to the United States Constitution, he wants a military that is loyal to him,” she said. “He wants a military that is loyal to him personally. One that will obey his orders even when he tells them to break the law or abandon their oath to the Constitution of the United States.”

Harris went on to call Trump a fascist, claim he would be a dictator on day one, and repeat a line she’s been using often lately, that Trump will use the military to go after American citizens, using it as “his personal militia to carry out his personal and political vendettas.” She closed by saying Trump is “increasing unhinged and unstable” and that he “wants unchecked power.”

Keep reading

‘The Atlantic’ Immediately Debunked After Attempting Yet Another Trump Military Hit Piece

The sister of slain soldier Vanessa Guillén slammed The Atlantic after it used anonymous sources to allege that President Donald Trump disparaged her after discovering the funeral expenses. 

Guillén’s death at the hands of a fellow soldier and his girlfriend became national news in 2020, with Trump comforting the grief-stricken family and extending death benefits. He also offered to cover the costs personally if the Army did not pay for the funeral expenses. 

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, however, attempted to rewrite history on Tuesday, claiming that Trump was outraged when he learned that Guillén’s funeral, which included heightened security and closed streets, cost $60,000. 

According to the magazine—relying on an anonymous source—Trump allegedly said, “It doesn’t cost 60,000 bucks to bury a fucking Mexican!” and ordered then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to deny payment. 

Guillén’s sister, Mayra, issued a viral statement on X, condemning The Atlantic’s distorted portrayal of her experience with Trump. 

“I don’t appreciate how you are exploiting my sister’s death for politics- hurtful & disrespectful to the important changes she made for service members,” Mayra wrote on X, garnering over 3 million views. 

“President Donald Trump did nothing but show respect to my family & Vanessa. In fact, I voted for President Trump today,” Mayra added.

Keep reading

WashPost OpEd: Young Americans ‘Must’ Shrink Their American Dream

President Donald Trump says he’s running to restore the American Dream by cutting migration, but the Washington Post says young Americans should resign themselves to small houses in a nation packed with millions of government-imported renters and buyers.

“The new American Dream should be a townhouse,” two Washington Post journalists declared in the headline of their October 21 op-ed, adding:

The American Dream is fundamental to what it means to be American. Keeping that dream alive for millennials, Gen Z and beyond requires right-sizing it by building more apartments, condos, duplexes and, especially, townhouses.

“In an age of tight money and its Toyota Camrys and Kirkland wine, it’s time to readjust the scope … townhouses consume less energy and foster healthy habits and social connection better than single-family homes,” a Washington Post opinion editor added on October 21.

The progressive cheerleading for pushing young Americans into small houses with postage-stamp lawns, steep stairs, minimal parking, and little privacy comes as Democrats insist on continuing President Joe Biden’s high-migration policies.

Keep reading

On the Constant, Unrelenting and Unhinged Anti-Trump Propaganda of the German Media

Pollsters periodically ask Germans which American presidential candidate they would support, were they in a position to vote. Last July, 79% said they would vote for Kamala Harris; only 13% would vote for Donald Trump. The numbers are typical: Barack Obama claimed 71% support in a similar poll from 2008 and Hillary Clinton enjoyed 82% support in 2016. Right now, Green voters split 99% for Harris, Social Democrat voters 92%, nominally centre-right CDU/CSU voters 89%, market-liberal FDP voters 85%, and voters for the old-school leftist Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht party 52%. Across the entire German political landscape, only Alternative für Deutschland voters would support Trump by a thin majority of 51%. Even here, one-in-four are undecided, and the remaining one-in-four would vote for Harris.

You might be tempted to argue that differing national interests explain this, but I don’t think that argument works. It’s far from obvious that a Harris administration would further the interests of the German people. The war in Ukraine and the associated bombing of Nord Stream, for example, were both enthusiastically supported by Joe Biden specifically, and they proved catastrophic for the Federal Republic. What is really going on here is much subtler: Many Germans know English, but consuming foreign-language material is a pain and relatively few have any direct contact with Trump’s debates, his speeches or sympathetic English-language reporting. We learn about American presidential campaigns primarily through our media, and Germany has a vast state-adjacent media industrial complex in much the same way that the United States has a vast state-adjacent military industrial complex.

Keep reading

Trump’s complaints about ’60 Minutes’ put a spotlight on editing at the nation’s top newsmagazine

Donald Trump skipped a “60 Minutes” interview this past week, but he’s attacking CBS for how it handled its session with opponent Kamala Harris, calling it a “giant fake news scam” and suggesting the network was out to protect her.

Portions of the Harris interview ran Monday on the newsmagazine and on the Sunday morning political show “Face the Nation.” On two occasions, it depicted Harris giving different answers to questions posed by correspondent Bill Whitaker on the Biden administration’s efforts to stop the war in the Mideast.

For CBS News, it was considered part of the typical editing and cross-promotion process that takes place for a big interview. Yet to those unfamiliar with journalism and television production, the effect can be jarring.

How did Harris appear to give two answers?

Whitaker interviewed Harris on Saturday afternoon, Oct. 5, in Washington for the special broadcast that aired Monday, two days later. But “60 Minutes” offered a portion of that interview to colleagues at “Face the Nation,” both to give the Sunday morning show some fresh news and to “tease” the longer interview.

At one point, Whitaker observed that it appeared Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, did not appear to be listening to the administration’s suggestions.

Keep reading

’60 Minutes’ Claims Trump Lied About Deceptively Edited Kamala Harris Interview

CBS’ 60 Minutes finally issued a statement on Sunday, claiming Donald Trump’s accusation that the show deceptively edited its interview with Kamala Harris earlier this month is “false” two weeks after the segment aired.

“Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false,” the press release stated.

The statement went on to admit they edited Harris’ answer to a question about Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but argued the alteration was not deceptive.

60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes,” the CBS program wrote. “Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”

Proving the mainstream media show’s message is political in nature, the statement went on to attack GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

60 Minutes added, “Remember, Mr. Trump pulled out of his interview with 60 Minutes and the vice president participated. Our long-standing invitation to former President Trump remains open. If he would like to discuss the issues facing the nation and the Harris interview, we would be happy to have him on 60 Minutes.”

The network can claim it didn’t try to manipulate the footage to make Harris’ answer more palatable, but readers can come to their own conclusions when comparing the longer answer aired on Face the Nation to the response aired by 60 Minutes.

Keep reading

WaPo’s Favorite Environmental Group Uses ‘Political’ Research To Link Climate Change to Natural Disasters. It’s Also Bankrolled by WaPo Owner Jeff Bezos.

World Weather Attribution was founded in 2014 to produce research linking extreme weather events to climate change. That research is then funneled to mainstream media outlets, giving them what the group calls the “larger global warming context” as they cover natural disasters.

The group found a friend in Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who in 2022 announced a $10 million grant to WWA and two other organizations to “scale effective communication on the links between climate change and extreme weather.” The Bezos Earth Fund said the money would provide the WWA an outlet to “reach the most important audience segments via trusted messengers.”

One such messenger is Bezos’s newspaper, the Washington Post, which has cited WWA research in more than 70 stories over the past three years, a Washington Free Beacon review found. It does so uncritically, publishing the group’s non-peer-reviewed findings to suggest that climate change is to blame for recent natural disasters, including Hurricane Milton. Nonpartisan experts in the field, however, are not so sure of WWA’s methods, portraying the group’s flashy studies as rushed, partisan, and “incomplete.”

Bezos’s funding for the group, paired with the Washington Post‘s favorable coverage of its research, raises questions about the newspaper’s declared independence from its billionaire owner. The Post’s stories citing WWA do not acknowledge that Bezos—who purchased the paper in 2013, one year before the group’s founding—also bankrolls WWA.

“The motivation is entirely political,” Ryan Maue, the former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said of the climate group. “I’m not sure what the scientific community’s opinion on it is, but my guess is that it has gotten along this far because of its political weight and the media attention that it is given, meaning you don’t want to be on the wrong side of this.”

Maue particularly criticized WWA’s methodology, which consists of determining the probability of a recent extreme weather event, comparing it with the probability of a similar event that occurred decades ago, and attributing the difference to climate change. That leads to flashy findings—but not necessarily accurate ones, according to Maue, who argued that the WWA values speed over accuracy and, as such, produces “incomplete” research.

“What they are able to put out is the headline that climate change made Hurricane Helene worse and then count on the scientific illiteracy of the corporate media in order to produce headlines that become, you know, more and more outlandish, making claims that obviously are not supported by the science,” he told the Free Beacon.

Keep reading

Sky News Reporter ROASTS Kamala Harris For Falsely Trying To Take Credit For Death of Hamas Leader: “We? We will always bring you to justice?”

Yesterday, it was reported that Yahya Sinwar, the top leader of the Hamas terror regime and architect of the Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, was killed by an Israeli drone.

With Joe Biden pulling off the greatest disappearing act in presidential history, VP Kamala Harris has been forced to respond to questions by the media about her position on the devastating Israeli-Hamas/Palestinian conflict. So far, Kamala’s been straddling the fence on the escalating conflict, as she relies on financial support from the Jewish-American voting block for her campaign while at the same time, she attempts to appease voters from her radical, pro-Hamas/Palestinian base, many of whom could affect the outcome of the upcoming election in the must-win state of Michigan.

In a brilliant, must-watch 7 minutes and 28 seconds, Sky News host Erin Molan lit up Kamala Harris and other world leaders, like America’s substitute “President” Kamala Harris, for issuing stern warnings to Prime Minister Netanyahu about crossing an imaginary “red line” and then praising Israel for taking out the top Hamas terror leader.

Keep reading