Tag: media

CBS News Not Airing ‘60 Minutes’ Jeffrey Epstein Story Under Scrutiny

Senator Ron Wyden has questioned why a 60 Minutes interview with now-former correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi on Jeffrey Epstein’s banking practices never aired, adding it had been “suppressed.”

The Oregon Democrat raised the issue in a new Senate Finance Committee report, published on August 4, alleging Deutsche Bank failed to promptly disclose more than $250 million in suspicious Epstein-related transactions.

“It is disappointing that, instead of advancing new facts that would help bring accountability to the men who participated in Epstein’s trafficking operation, the report largely recycles allegations that have already been exhaustively examined by courts and the government,” a spokesperson for JPMorgan Chase told Newsweek.

Asked for comment, Wyden’s office pointed Newsweek to page 61 of the report, where it says his taped interview with Alfonsi was intended for a broader 60 Minutes segment on banks and Epstein, adding that it is unclear whether CBS News leadership will allow the broader segment to air following Alfonsi’s departure from the network.

CBS News says the segment simply was not ready before the show’s season ended.

Pushing back against any suggestion that the interview was buried, a spokesperson for the network said in a statement shared with Newsweek via email: “We air pieces when they are ready, and suggesting that an interview is being ‘suppressed’ for any reason is categorically false.”

According to Wyden’s report, “the investigation found significant evidence that JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America violated federal anti-money laundering laws by failing to screen and report Epstein’s suspicious financial transactions in a timely manner.”

A spokesperson for Bank of America told Newsweek: “We take our legal and regulatory obligations seriously and, as we have previously said, the bank did not facilitate wrongdoing.”

Keep reading

If You Want to Live, Stop Trusting the FDA, CDC, Corporate Media, and Jab-Pushing Doctors

If You Want to Live, You Have to Think For Yourself

I recently posted a flippant comment about not trusting the judgment of people who took the COVID jabs. The backlash was immediate and furious, and it only confirmed what I’ve known for years: too many people have outsourced their thinking to authorities who lie to them for a living.

The anger proves my point. When you confront people with evidence that their trusted institutions deceived them, they don’t want to hear it. They’d rather defend the authority that misled them than admit they were used as guinea pigs in a mass medical experiment. That’s not stubbornness; it’s deep psychological conditioning.

I make one exception: the active-duty military personnel who were physically coerced into taking the shots. The United States Coast Guard members who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Biden administration over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate were victims of medical assault, not naive volunteers. [1] Their “choice” was discharge, career destruction, and public humiliation. I have nothing but respect for the people who fought back.

The ‘I Trusted My Doctor’ Excuse Is Not a Defense

The most common justification I heard from angry commenters was some variation of “I trusted my doctor, the FDA, the CDC, the media, Fauci.” And that is exactly the problem. Your doctor was not the one who authorized an experimental gene therapy with zero long-term safety data. Your doctor was just the final delivery mechanism for a system that had already abandoned real science.

The Biden administration pressured the FDA to “change its procedures, cut corners, and lower agency standards” to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines, according to a congressional report. [2] Emergency use authorization was never meant to bypass the entire clinical trial process, yet that is precisely what happened. Experts said that properly analyzing millions of pages of individual participant data would have required at least six months, so they skipped it entirely. [3]

Pfizer’s own whistleblower, Brook Jackson, testified that trial data were falsified, patients were unblinded, poorly trained personnel administered injections, and follow-up on reported side effects was significantly delayed. [4] Anyone with internet access could have found all of this information in real time from independent voices. Ignorance was a choice, and for too many people, it was a fatal one.

Keep reading

Max Miller Destroys His Career in Disastrous, Shambolic CNN Interview

Well. That was an unmitigated disaster. 

In today’s edition of Save My Career, embattled Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) appeared on CNN yesterday evening, where anchor Jake Tapper cross-examined him — live on the air — about allegations of spousal abuse, child abuse, and drug use. And it was certainly a memorable performance for all the wrong reasons.

Why’d he go on CNN? 

We’ll get into that in just a sec, but we must first identify Miller’s PR objectives:

  1. Reassure Republican voters so that he doesn’t face pressure to drop out of his reelection race. (GOP abandonment is his #1 vulnerability. If he loses MAGA’s base, his career is kaput.) He wants us to believe that Team MAGA still needs him.
  2. Put his latest scandal(s) behind him. (This has “already been addressed” and is therefore “yesterday’s news.”) Time to move on.
  3. Appear credible, honest, and trustworthy — so we believe his denials.

Now let’s reverse-engineer Miller’s PR strategy: The benefit of using CNN — as opposed to Fox News, where the ratings (and Republican audience) are over triple the size — is threefold:

  1. By appearing on CNN, Miller is signaling that he’s unafraid of tough, hostile questions. You can accuse him of many things (some of which are admittedly horrific), but you can’t accuse him of seeking a softball interview. He wants us to conclude, “If Miller had anything to hide, he wouldn’t have gone on CNN.” Thus, he must be innocent.
  2. Jake Tapper was also a perfect foil because GOP audiences are already expecting him to be rude, nasty, and antagonistic towards Republicans. In a verbal conflict between Tapper and Miller, conservatives are STRONGLY predisposed to side with Miller because Tapper has made false accusations against Republicans for years. (Plus, since Joe Biden’s senility so spectacularly fooled Tapper, he’s clearly not that bright, and Miller probably figured he’d steamroll him.)
  3. Since CNN’s Republican audience is so small, more Republicans will hear about his interview than see it. This means Miller can claim credit for entering the “belly of the beast” (and answering all the tough questions without flinching), while spinning any problematic moments on X, conservative podcasts, Fox News, Newsmax, etc. — where the MAGA audience is more concentrated.

I understand why Miller adopted this strategy, but it was still PR malpractice. In fact, it was such an unholy trainwreck that his career is likely over.

The smarter PR approach would’ve been to sidestep the controversy instead of litigating it point-by-point: “I love my little girl more than life itself, and it just kills me that she’ll read all these horrible lies about her daddy one day. That’s why I’ll never say a bad word about my daughter’s mother — even when it exonerates me.”

That’s all he had to say!

Keep reading

The Dumb, Arrogant Liars Who Are Also Journalists

There is a frustrating contradiction when it comes to the way public information is assessed for factual truth.  For decades, prominent news organizations have steadily lost credibility.  Fewer Americans than ever believe what The New York Times, CNN, NPR, or even the AP publishes as the “objective” record of current events.

At the same time, however, alternative, competing descriptions of current events are almost entirely ignored.  No matter how compelling or factually sourced a story might be, it is largely disregarded until mainstream corporate news institutions are willing to recognize its validity.

This annoying state of affairs was highlighted last week after Dr. Anthony Fauci refused to testify before the Senate.  Although the man holds one of Joe Biden’s get-out-of-jail-free autopen pardons, Fauci cowardly asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than a hundred times.

With a general pardon in hand that presumably allows him to get away with past acts of mass murder, he could put himself in legal jeopardy only by not telling the truth while under oath at the hearing.  So long as Fauci avoided newly committing perjury, there was no risk to his liberty.  The fact that he nevertheless remained mum the whole time revealed a particularly guilty conscience: Fauci could not bear the thought of admitting to the world that he told numerous lies in the past.

To be sure, Fauci’s lies are huge and unforgivable.  He lied about COVID arising from inter-species transmission in an outdoor meat market rather than from a bioweapons laboratory re-engineering coronaviruses in Wuhan, China.

He lied about not having partially funded deadly coronavirus research at that lab as part of a workaround to American regulatory prohibitions against such dangerous projects.  He lied about COVID’s lethality, especially with regard to young or healthy bodies.  He lied about the efficacy of simple masks to prevent viral transmission.  He lied about the need to close schools and businesses.  He lied about the need for draconian home confinements.  He lied about the effectiveness of the experimental mRNA injections that he called “vaccines.”  He lied about the proven effectiveness of alternative treatments.  He lied about the effectiveness of natural immunity.

His lies were profound, and because mainstream news institutions refused to question anything he said, his lies were the only bits of information allowed to circulate in the public sphere.  So-called “journalists” not only repeated verbatim exactly what the government’s chief medical bureaucrat claimed to be true but also cheered social media platforms for censoring competing points of view.

“Reporters” working for The New York Times and CNN were enthralled by Fauci’s perceived professional prestige and institutional authority.  Why?  Because they are enamored of their own perceived professional prestige and institutional authority.  They worship glory and accolades; they are slaves to appeals to authority; they care nothing for the pursuit of truth.

Keep reading

LAUGHABLE: MSNOW Host Tries to Suggest DSA Candidates Are Moderating Their Views

Eugene Daniels of MSNOW recently suggested that DSA members running for office are starting to moderate their views. It is to laugh.

As proof of this, he talks about being handed a document by a DSA member that no longer included anything about abolishing the Senate, defunding the Department of War, or the police.

In other words, they’ve started hiding all the crazy stuff they believe from public view, and to Daniels, this is proof that they are taking a more moderate approach. Only someone who watches MSNOW would believe this idiocy.

Transcript via NewsBusters:

EUGENE DANIELS: So, guys, I think—what I thought was really interesting and what I left with was that they’re also understanding that this is a moment that they haven’t had before, and that they actually have to appear more serious.

You know, when I was talking to the co-chair at the beginning there, one of the other parts of the conversation was that, you know, they know that people see them as like, silly little kids that are playing politics or — where in fact, they could, you know, take all of the anger that’s happening in this country and transition into something real.

And so when you talk about, you know, that little pamphlet I had was something that they were giving out to everyone. And what was not in there was the stuff that has gotten the most attention from their platform. That’s on two pages. We have this in element one. There are a lot of things on there, but what wasn’t in that in that paper was there was no abolish the U.S. Senate, which has gotten them pilloried. There was no abolish the Defense Department. There was no there was nothing about defunding the police. That that was not in there.

And what he said to me was this document that I was holding in my hand, has — was put together in the last month. So to me that signals that there may be some changes coming to the platform.

Keep reading

Mainstream Media Bias in Fauci Hearings: Republicans Were Mean To Him

Anthony Fauci’s July 29 congressional testimony generated extensive media coverage, but the reporting revealed a sharp divide in how the hearing was portrayed. The coverage underscores the left-leaning agenda of the mainstream media. Right-leaning media have concentrated on the facts of the case, the questions asked, and the evidence they argue shows that Fauci knew social distancing and lockdowns were ineffective and that the vaccines may have been harmful.

Left-leaning mainstream media outlets, by contrast, defended Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment while overlooking what his silence left unanswered. They framed the questioning itself, not Fauci’s refusal to answer, as the story and characterized the hearing as partisan theater, with little attention to the substance of the gain-of-function, lockdown, and vaccine-safety questions being asked.

Evidence for the inquiry derives from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic’s report, *After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward*, a 520-page final report released in December 2024 after a two-year, bipartisan-membership investigation that included more than 100 investigative letters, 38 interviews or depositions, 25 hearings, and review of over a million pages of documents.

The report concluded that SARS-CoV-2 likely leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan rather than emerging naturally, based on the virus’s biological characteristics and illnesses among researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the fall of 2019. It found that the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that EcoHealth Alliance, which subawarded those NIH grants, failed to properly oversee the experiments, facilitated the gain-of-function work, and misled the NIH about its research.

The report also concluded that Chinese and U.S. government agencies, along with some members of the international scientific community, sought to cover up facts about the pandemic’s origins.

On mitigation measures, the subcommittee found that masking and social distancing mandates were not based on hard science. It also concluded that the 6-foot social distancing guidance was not supported by science, despite being forcefully implemented by state and local governments. Finally, the report found that prolonged lockdowns caused severe harm to the American economy and to Americans’ mental and physical health, with a particularly negative effect on the young.

Keep reading

Newsom’s Release of Tax Returns Called ‘an Insult to Transparency’

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California released four years of federal tax returns this week to carefully selected news outlets — a disclosure which one news outlet slammed as “sneaky” and an “insult to transparency.”

The release was prompted “in part by a federal investigation into the finances of his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom,” aides told the New York Times, one of the few publications tapped to view and report on the returns.

That’s the rub, critics said.

The California Post reported Saturday that the governor “only permitted a small group of favored media outlets to pore over 718 pages of documents while forbidding them from making copies,” a move it headlined as “sneaky” and the process an “insult to transparency.”

The Post, which had lobbied for their release, was not one of the chosen few.

In 2024, the most recent year released, the Newsoms reported a taxable income of about $1.39 million, $1 million of that from investments, according to the Times’ reporting on Friday.

The governor’s taxable wages from his salary as governor were about $192,000. According to that report “his wife’s wages were about $148,000.”

Until this week, Newsom and his wife have not released returns since he ran for reelection in 2022, though when he was first elected governor he promised to release them annually–but failed to do so, the Times noted.

His office told the newspaper that the new release was in response to “right-wing claims” that the couple enriched themselves during his time in office.

The Post and others, however, took umbrage at the methodology of the disclosure. The paper reported the release was made at a “carefully managed private media event Thursday in Sacramento.”

“Media outlets including the New York Times and Politico, whose reporters were ordered to use only a pen and paper to take notes on the documents, agreed to publish their findings Friday morning,” the Post wrote in its Saturday edition.

The Times confirmed that restricted note-taking scenario as well.

The Post published comments from two critical congressmen from the Golden State.

“If the governor is truly committed to transparency, it makes little sense to pick and choose who that transparency extends to,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), a former state legislator, told the tabloid. “This appears to be another Newsom story where the factual details are very different from the self-proclaimed headline.”

Rep. James Gallagher (R-CA) also weighed in, saying, “Newsom’s transparency is a lot like his homelessness policy — it leaves a lot to be desired.”

He continued, “He talks big about things but never actually delivers. This is another instance of that — only allowing select people and only pen and paper. This isn’t real transparency. There are still a lot of questions where Gavin’s money comes from.”

According to the Times:

The returns, which were released for 2021 through 2024, show that Mr. Newsom’s finances have been fairly stable over the years, except in 2021, when the family’s income received a $1 million boost after they sold a multimillion-dollar home. Mr. Newsom has filed for an extension to file his 2025 return, which is due in October.

Tax returns often do not indicate how much a person’s wealth has grown through investments and business holdings. Many asset classes grew substantially in value between 2021 and 2024, yet the Newsoms’ income remained roughly the same. The governor and his wife both have significant investments in blind trusts, and only the income from those investments was reflected in the tax returns.

The couple, the Times reported, earned the bulk of their joint income from the governor’s investment in the wine and hospitality industry, held in a blind trust. His wife’s income stemmed from nonprofits with which she is associated.

The governor, who published his memoir Young Man in a Hurry, also earned $70,000 as an author in 2023 and $75,000 in $2024, presumably as advances for that book or royalties for a children’s book he also wrote.

Over the period released, the couple’s donations to charity ranged from a low of $40,000 in 2021 to a high of $67,000 in 2023. The names of organizations receiving cash were withheld, according to the Times, while recipients of non-cash donations were included.

One such donation was “Armani business wear” to a justice nonprofit in Oakland, the clothing costing them $45,000 but listed at a “thrift shop value” of only $4900. Other donations like toys and furniture went to Goodwill Industries.

The couple also paid additional taxes for domestic staff members and babysitters, reportedly paying nearly $200,000 in wages for household employees in 2024.

The returns came especially into focus after the governor disclosed recently that he and his wife are subjects of a federal investigation, which he claims is politically motivated.

Newsom in the past has accused the administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against him because he is a likely contender in the 2028 presidential election.

Keep reading

RFK Debunks Sen. Warren’s Hypocritical Attack on His Supposed Big Pharma ‘Conflict of Interest’

Reuters and Washington Post have a new deceptive report out claiming that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has financially benefited from a settlement with a top pharmaceutical company. But they left the crucial context out that showed he personally received not a dime.

Democrats are never ones for context. They love to have reasons to pretend they are destroying corruption when they are really going after personal political opponents. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for instance, had her warpaint and Tomahawk out as she screeched, “Is RFK Jr.’s son getting a cut of a $50 MILLION settlement that his dad could have influenced? I’m investigating.” Naturally, she needs something to investigate to avoid investigating Anthony Fauci and the pharmaceutical companies that pushed COVID vaccines that we now know, courtesy of Fauci‘s journal, were quite ineffective and sometimes injurious.

Kennedy responded to Warren and the lefty media outlets at the same time. “The Washington Post editorial board accuses me of a conflict of interest that might bias me against Big Pharma, whose interests they apparently seek to protect,” he posted on X, highlighting the irony of media and politicians rushing to defend monopolistic businesses. “The alleged conflict comes from money I supposedly made from a settlement in a lawsuit against Merck for injuries caused by its Gardasil vaccine.”

He emphatically stated: “The problem is that I never received a penny from the Merck Gardasil settlement, and neither has my son nor anyone else in my family.” So Warren et al. are smearing Kennedy with — surprise, surprise — lies.

Kennedy explained further, “Before taking office, I relinquished any interest in potential Gardasil fees back to the Wisner Baum law firm, which publicly confirmed this during my confirmation process. Yet @SenWarren, @Reuters, and @washingtonpost editorial board — in their ardor to protect Big Pharma — continue to push a false narrative that makes Big Pharma the victim and me the mendacious villain.”

For yet more interesting context, according to a Fox News report from last year, Warren received a whopping $5 million from Big Pharma during her 2020 presidential bid. And the Washington Post freaked out when Kennedy proposed limiting pharmaceutical ads. Always follow the money.

Keep reading

Craziest Part Of New Biden Tapes Is That Media Who Covered For Him Still Have Jobs

Newly released audio of former President Joe Biden shows him struggling to remember names and dates and losing his train of thought during 2016 and 2017 interviews. But the most damning part about the audio tapes is that the propagandists masquerading as journalists who spent four years concealing his decline are still employed.

The Oversight Project, a government watchdog group, fought for more than two years to get the tapes released. The tapes and transcripts cover Biden’s conversations with his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, between 2016 and 2017. These tapes were used by Special Counsel Robert Hur during his investigation into whether Biden mishandled classified information.

Ultimately Hur found “Biden’s memory was significantly limited” during both the interviews with Zwonitzer and Hur himself. Hur also concluded that “Mr. Biden’s recorded conversations with Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.”

The newly released tapes show Biden struggling to recall the names of two of his former economic advisers in April of 2017: “including the two guys who I think were with me, were — oh, God. The guy at Princeton now. Economist. Good guy, was our, our chief economic advisor. Not Kaufman. I’ll think of his name.” Biden later said: “I should write the names down because I keep forgetting them.”

In another instance Biden could not recall the date of a memorial service for a fallen service member: “I think I went to that memorial service in Wilmington. It says [REDACTED] December the 4th, but I don’t — I know what this means. Memorial service — [REDACTED] gets names really f–ed up,” Biden said.

“So it says memorial service for [REDACTED]. I don’t think her name was [REDACTED]. Or I forget [REDACTED].”

In another instance Biden couldn’t recall what he was going to say.

“What was I going to ask you?” Biden said. “Oh, gosh. I, I can’t think of what it is.”

These recordings don’t just add additional proof of Biden’s cognitive decline; they also prove that the problem was noticeable before Biden reentered the White House in 2021. Biden only continued to decline, and Americans watched it unfold. Yet Democrats and legacy media assured Americans repeatedly that Biden’s cognitive decline, which was on full display during the 2024 debate, was a sudden development rather than the culmination of years of warning signs.

The Biden administration understood how politically damaging his decline was, with Hur having testified that the White House urged him to alter the “references to the president’s poor memory” in his report on Biden’s mishandling of classified documents. Hur also testified that Zwonitzer “attempted to destroy evidence following Hur’s appointment to investigate the mishandling of classified information,” as The Federalist reported.

But White House officials could not have kept up the deception on their own. They needed an accomplice willing to tell Americans not to believe what they could hear and see. That accomplice? The propaganda press.

Days before the infamous debate, The New York Times had a report that read: “How Misleading Videos Are Trailing Biden as He Battles Age Doubts.” The Times’ editorial page had an essay entitled “I’m a Neuroscientist. We’re Thinking About Biden’s Memory and Age in the Wrong Way.”

Keep reading

The Latest Wildfire Panic is Refuted by Data

Wildfires are in the news. With a hot, dry summer it was bound to happen. And, naturally, this is bringing with it talk of climate change.

The Independent is screaming and rending its garments:

Europe is on fire – will the continent’s climate change deniers finally wake up?

The Guardian has an opinion piece calling for prosecutions for climate crimes. Twitter experts are calling for changes to the way we live our lives.

Prince William is saying stuff:

Wildfires ‘stark reminder’ of extreme climate challenge, says William

I suppose we should make the usual point, that wildfires are a natural phenomenon that are an important part of the life cycle of many ecosystems. And that some years are bound to be worse than others.

But there’s just one issue, wildfire activity is actually down.

A new study from the University of East Anglia, published in May, found that 2025 was 16% below the average in terms of burnt area, and that’s despite policies known to increase both the chance of wildfires starting and the area they will burn.

But that was last year, this year must be different given the coverage, right?

Wrong.

Data from the EU’s Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service shows that, to the end of June, this year had substantially lower wildfire activity – across every continent – than any year since they began collecting data in 2003.

Keep reading