“A Contradiction In Terms”: Chuck Todd’s “Inadvertent” Journalism


Yesterday, I was critical of a segment by NBC News’ Chuck Todd that addressed the motion to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, including the use of a statement by President Obama without noting that he was wrong on the underlying charge and wrong on the absence of precedent (including a high-profile case from his own Administration).  I previously called for the motion that was filed and criticized those who have ignored the clear evidence of prosecutorial abuse, including possible violations of Brady and standing court orders.   It is always unnerving when Todd starts a discussion about the Trump Administration with “it is not partisan to say . . .” During Todd’s questioning of the panel on NBC’s Meet the Press, he used a clearly deceptive clip of a statement by Attorney General Bill Barr to suggest that Barr simply justified his decision as an exercise of raw power.  Both the question and carefully clipped soundbite belie the later statement from Todd’s staff that the misrepresentation of Barr’s words as “inadvertently and inaccurately” edited. However, Todd has not issued an apology and NBC has only issued this brief statement.  Such expectations seem quant relics in this age of rage and echo journalism. Many in the media seem to have embraced Hunter Thompson’s rejection of  “objective journalism” as “a pompous contradiction in terms.” What is a contradiction in terms is this type of inadvertent journalism. (For full disclosure, I testified in favor of Barr’s confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee).

Todd used a tightly clipped portion of an interview of Barr with CBS News’ Catherine Herridge in which Herridge asked him how history would judge the decision to seek the dismissal of the Flynn case.  Todd showed Barr laughing: “Well, history is written by the winners, so it largely depends on who’s writing the history.” The clip was clearly designed to set up his hit on Barr as he observed how  he was “struck by the cynicism of the answer — it’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this was a political job.”

Todd was fully aware that Barr did indeed make the case for upholding the rule of law with the decision. The whole interview was on that subject. Barr stated indeed following immediately with precisely the statement that Todd decried as shockingly absent from the interview: “Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history. But I think a fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice and it undid what was an injustice.”

I have previously criticized Todd for raw partisan attacks often expressed as questions or quoting others.

Such partisan advocacy and attacks are now celebrated in many circles as the coverage devolves into a modern form of yellow journalism. The bias has been positively stifling with unrelentingly negative spins and distorted analysis.  The only consistent element is the narrative from a media that seems uniformly on script in coverage.  What remains is a smug cynicism reflected in the Todd segment, which NBC later shrugged off as “inadvertently and inaccurately” edited.  The edit was made in obvious use to support Todd’s attack. Moreover, Todd’s question was premised on his having watched the interview so he knew that it was taken out of context.  It was in other words premeditated to fit Todd’s narrative.  The fact is that some in the media would prefer to distort the facts (and, in the Flynn case, even embrace prosecutorial misconduct) if it advances what has become movement journalism.

I have often criticized President Trump in columns and on this blog.  Yet, even raising such clear violations of journalistic values is treated as sacrilegious in today’s mainstream media.  There is an insatiable appetite for distorted legal analysis and a corresponding intolerance for any dissenting views.  The Todd segment was another hit job that misrepresented facts to feed the demand of echo journalism.

Jean-Paul Sartre once said “Better a good journalist than a poor assassin.”  Todd made a poor journalist this week in order to be a better assassin.

156 thoughts on ““A Contradiction In Terms”: Chuck Todd’s “Inadvertent” Journalism”

  1. President Deceives Himself:

    Trump Says Virus Testing ‘Makes Us Look Bad’

    The coronavirus has in recent days edged closer to President Trump. At least two White House aides who’ve been in proximity to the president and the vice president have tested positive for COVID-19.

    Because of that, three key members of the Trump administration’s pandemic response team are quarantining themselves: Drs. Robert Redfield, Stephen Hahn and Anthony Fauci. Redfield is head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hahn heads up the Food and Drug Administration and Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and is the nation’s top infectious disease expert.

    All three, plus the assistant secretary for health, Dr. Brett Giroir, are slated to testify before a key Senate committee Tuesday. The hearing, which is ironically titled “COVID-19: Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School,” will now be done via video conference.

    The chair of that committee, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander, is also self-quarantining. His office announced Sunday night that a member of the staff tested positive for COVID-19. Alexander will chair Tuesday’s hearing from Tennessee.

    In recent days, Alexander has said that the coronavirus testing the United States has done so far is “not nearly enough,” and “there is no safe path forward to combat the novel coronavirus without adequate testing.”

    Trump has touted the overall number of tests that have been conducted in the country — now more than 8 million. But at times he’s read a different message in them.

    “If we did very little testing, [America] wouldn’t have the most cases,” Trump said Wednesday. “So, in a way, by doing all of this testing, we make ourselves look bad.”

    And Trump’s reservations about testing appear to be rooted in politics. Trump said Friday he believes some Democrats hope the economy doesn’t bounce back.

    “I will tell you, you look at some cases, some people think they’re doing it for politics,” Trump said on Fox News Channel. “Here we go again. But they think they’re doing it because it’ll hurt me, the longer it takes to — hurt me in the election, the longer it takes to open up.”

    But Trump’s focus on how the pandemic makes him and the nation look doesn’t get the country closer to being prepared and able to live with the coronavirus.

    Edited From,: “Trump Says More Testing Makes Us ‘Look Bad’. But Its Availability Remains A Concern”

    Today’s NPR

    There’s a sad irony to this story. Tomorrow’s Senate hearing to determine the safety of reopening this country is going to be conducted by video conferencing. This became the option after the President’s valet and Vice President’s senior aide tested positive to the Coronavirus.

  2. Glenn Greenwald
    Hordes of Russigate conspiracy theorists – from discredited neocons to security state agents to online #Resistance cretins – got very rich & reaped huge rewards for doing it.

    Russiagate skepticism got one ostracized & marginalized from jingoistic media & Decent Liberal Society.

    3:19 PM · May 11, 2020·

  3. Readers will observe a troll batting for the Left using varied aliases on the blog who has had a dozen other aliases in the past: John Elder, Captain Lockhardt, July Johnson, Ethan Edwards, Bottomboy, etc. His most enduring moniker is Paint Chips. His clients inform us he owns a nail salon in West Hollywood and plays the theme song of “Nails, Hair, Lips, Heel” when not cruising in WeHo. We are told he blathers about right wing conspiracies while painting nails the color Fuchsia.



      These are the Puppet Stooges defending Trump on Johnathan Turley’s blog. They mount furious smear campaigns with stupid videos as visual aids.

      Classy group, huh? Like Intelligent readers will want to identify with them. Like a serious lawyer, happening upon this thread, is going to think: “Well it’s a good thing Turley has these stooges defending his columns”. ..NOT..!

      1. From https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/
        “… while I have limited time to monitor the site, I will delete abusive comments when I see them or when they are raised to me. If the conduct continues, I will consider banning the person responsible. However, such transgressions should be raised with me by email and not used as an excuse to trash talk or retaliate. …”
        His email address is listed in the comments on the above page.

    2. This song, again!? Lol.

      Fun fact. Millennium Dance is a notorious dance studio in the Valley. It brings some of the best dancers in the country, they come here, for Hollywood.

      Another fun fact. They listed the dancers off in the film by “technical skills.”. The first man and first woman were far superior in strength, control, flexibility, and overall ability—than all the rest of them in the video.

      You can see who has had 15 + years of ballet, and those who are not technically trained.

      Anyhoo, tangent, but I click on the videos here.

      1. The sad part about a lot of these dancers is they come here to make it in Hollywood on a dance competition show, which could lead to being hired to do choreography for music videos and award shows, but the job market for that job is slow slim to none, you still have to “know” the right ppl.

        On the dance competition shows and the singing shows, for that matter, a lot of the competitors get on the show by already having been a backup dance or singer for a celebrity. They already know the right ppl. They just make them go through the “fake” auditions, for the footage for the TV show.

        1. WW33 – where is Harvey Weinstein when a girl needs a job? 😉

  4. This is what happens when you don’t have balance in the media Jonathan. They are all going the same direction at such a brisk pace the inertia of the agenda carries them like a swift current unto the coming cliff that shall be their undoings.

    Imagine not wanting a new press room because it would enlarge it to the point that other media types would be invited and they might lose their grip on the news agenda !! That would be ghastly !!

  5. Turley wants to talk about unfair journalism? Really? Why not start with Fox News. How about Rush Limbaugh? Talk about complaining over the splinter in someone else’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

    1. “Natacha whataboutisms”
      ‘More Natacha Kellyanne pivoting”

      1. Kurtz, if the subject is unfair and biased reporting, the integrity of the columnist – given his never raising the issue over similar and blatant practices by a Trump friendly network – is fair game. Do you have something to say about that?

        1. No, I have something to say about you insulting the host of this website every day with dreck, however. it stinks

          Professor Turley’s short bio from university. He is deeply worth of respect.


          Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. After a stint at Tulane Law School, Professor Turley joined the GW Law faculty in 1990, and in 1998, became the youngest chaired professor in the school’s history.

          He is the founder and executive director of the Project for Older Prisoners (POPS). He has written more than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals including those of Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, and Northwestern Universities, among others. He most recently completed a three-part study of the historical and constitutional evolution of the military system.

          Professor Turley has served as counsel in some of the most notable cases in the last two decades, including his representation of the Area 51 workers at a secret air base in Nevada; the nuclear couriers at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Rocky Flats grand jury in Colorado; Dr. Eric Foretich, the husband in the Elizabeth Morgan custody controversy; and four former U.S. Attorney Generals during the Clinton impeachment litigation. Professor Turley also has served as counsel in a variety of national security and terrorism cases, and has been ranked as one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases.

          He has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues, and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues as well as tort reform legislation. He also is a nationally recognized legal commentator; he ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by Judge Richard Posner and was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country.

          He is a member of the USA Today board of contributors and the recipient of the “2005 Single Issue Advocate of the Year” – the annual opinion award for the Aspen Institute and The Week magazine. More than 400 of his articles on legal and policy issues regularly appear in national newspapers. He also has worked as the CBS and NBC legal analyst, respectively, during national controversies.

  6. The ‘Real News’ On William Barr Today:

    1,900 Former DOJ Staffers Sign Letter Calling On Barr To Resign

    Nearly 2000 former Justice Department officials have signed onto a letter calling for Attorney General William Barr to resign over what they describe as his improper intervention in the criminal case of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.

    Last week, the DOJ moved to drop charges against Flynn who had pleaded guilty twice to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition.

    The letter, signed mostly by former career officials in the department, accuses Barr of joining with President Trump in “political interference in the Department’s law enforcement decisions.”

    “Attorney General Barr’s repeated actions to use the Department as a tool to further President Trump’s personal and political interests have undermined any claim to the deference that courts usually apply to the Department’s decisions about whether or not to prosecute a case,” reads the letter, which was organized by the group ‘Protect Democracy’.

    Barr, in a CBS News interview last week, denied he was acting at the president’s behest in his support of the move to drop the charges against Flynn.

    The federal judge in the case as of Monday morning had not yet responded to the DOJ filing.

    The letter is the latest in a wave of backlash among former officials to the DOJ’s surprise reversal in the Flynn case.

    Edited from: “Nearly 2,000 Former DOJ Officials Call For A.G. Barr To Resign Over Flynn Case,”

    ABC News, 5/11/20

    1. “The ‘Real News’ On William Barr Today: 1,900 Former DOJ Staffers Sign Letter Calling On Barr To Resign”

      All this proves how corrupt the DOJ might be, how ABC doesn’t fact check and the fact that you are posting under another alias trying to spread around BS.

      1. It was awfully nice of them to put in one place a list of corrupt, lawless hacks who have no business serving in government ever again. @seanmdav

      2. OK, I’ll accept that number whether they were pushed into signing or not. That leaves1,298,100 that didn’t sign. I’m sure I could get more to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen oxide.

        That is the problem with this type of anonymous along and John Elder. You guys don’t know what the numbers mean. You are so proud, but you couldn’t get 1,298,100 to sign the petition. You know how this makes you guys look? Foolish.

        1. Or maybe I understand “what the numbers mean” better than you do. The signatories are restricted to former DOJ employees and consist primarily of attorneys, which is a clearly a proper subset of all former DOJ employees.

          It’s a bit puzzling how you decided that there are “1,298,100” former DOJ employees eligible to sign it.

          1. “Or maybe I understand “what the numbers mean” better than you do.”

            You don’t understand the numbers and that is obvious from what you say. 1,900 people with1.35 million lawyers. That you say they are restricted to DOJ is true. There are well over 100,000 people that work for the DOJ right now. That means that the numbers of people that have worked for the DOJ (perhaps all the way back to the Eisnhower administration) is massive and you say you understand the numbers? That is laughable. But you do say the measly 1.900 is a lot? Laughable again. It’s a tiny number and they aren’t even all verified. You add “consist primarily of attorneys”. For you to say that you would know the number of attorney’s, do you? No you don’t. You talk numbers but you don’t know what they mean. Considering the fact that Obama was in office for 8 years there are loads of people in and retired from the DOJ that are totally loyal to Obama. I’m shocked that so few people signed on the dotted line. You think the numbers are vast, but that is plain foolish.

            By the way a lot of these people are a bit crazy. They have TDS. They want to fire and possibly indict the attorney general. The group sponsoring this group is a far left group created in 2017 after Trump was elected. I’m sure the vast majority of the DOJ voted for Clinton so once again the 1,900 number is very small but you say you know the numbers. It turns out you know very little and you don’t even know your own name.

            1. I see that you’ve simply chosen to ignore the fact that you claimed “That leaves1,298,100 that didn’t sign” and won’t explain how you decided on “1,298,100.”

              “There are well over 100,000 people that work for the DOJ right now.”

              I know.

              “But you do say the measly 1.900 is a lot?”

              No, I never said that. Odd that you’d have to ask when the words are there on the page.

              “For you to say that you would know the number of attorney’s, do you?”

              Each person is identified by name and highest DOJ work title. It’s not hard to scroll through and look at the work titles and know what kind of background is required for those titles.

              “You think the numbers are vast…”

              I didn’t say that either.

              You’re awfully sloppy in attributing beliefs to me that aren’t mine. I’m not surprised, given your earlier claim “You are so proud,” when I didn’t suggest that either.

              1. “I see that you’ve simply chosen to ignore the fact that you claimed “That leaves1,298,100 that didn’t sign” and won’t explain how you decided on “1,298,100.””. You highlighted “consist primarily of attorneys” For a bit of perspective I gave you the total number of lawyers in the US in 2019 and to be accurate the actual number is 50,000 more. But you just want DOJ employees of which there are over well over100,000 employees working now and that doesn’t include the massive number of employees that are retired and go all the way back to the Eisnhower administration. The fact that in 8 years the Obama administration appointed and hired many empolyees makes the 1,900 seem awfully small but you want to tell us you understand the numbers. You don’t understand them and it seems there isn’t much that you understand.

                “Each person is identified by name and highest DOJ work title. It’s not hard to scroll through and look at the work titles and know what kind of background is required for those titles.”

                Go ahead and do it before you open your mouth. That is something you rarely do. But it is an unimportant number, though to you it seems extremely important. Imagine that Obama Administration appointees not signing below a crazy document while you think it so important you give us the address of the document. I don’t think all the names are even verified.

                It’s a bunch of mostly crazy people with TDS and that is the nature of the organization behind it. The organization was founded in 2017. Do you get the drift? I better answer because you don’t seem very good with numbers and that probably includes dates. Does the fact that Trump assumed office have any relavance? Of course. The fact that this group wants to do away with Barr make you feel the group has a head on its shoulders? Probably because you don’t see the criminality in what the Obama Administration DOJ did to innocent people. It was revealed in the FBI documents and you think these awful people wouldn’t sign a crazy document. Read the FBI releases and compare it to what a number of DOJ officials said publically. They lied.

                You lay claim to the fact that you didn’t say the numbers were vast. That is implied when you go to the trouble of posting the address. I guess you should name yourself “trivial poster” since that is what you think is so fascinating about you.

                All in all you don’t know numbers, you don’t know much of anything else and that has been proven on other topics. I am not attributing beliefs to you. I am responding to the garbage you write.

                1. Look, if you can’t even figure out the size of the proper subset of U.S. lawyers who previously worked for the DOJ and then recognize that it’s considerably smaller than 1,298,100, then you have an arithmetic problem.

                  And given your continued false assumptions and insults, I’m not going to invest any further time in this exchange.

                  1. “Look, if you can’t even figure out the size of the proper subset of U.S. lawyers who previously worked for the DOJ and then recognize that it’s considerably smaller than 1,298,100, then you have an arithmetic problem.”

                    Trivial poster, but I told you the number of lawyers in the US and then I gave you the approximate number of DOJ officials so you have a significant reading problem. You posted an address for a trivial number of people that can’t contain their stupidity and now you seem to be following suit.

                    “And given your continued false assumptions and insults, I’m not going to invest any further time in this exchange.”

                    No false assumptions but you don’t know very much and invest a lot of time in posting under different names. It would be best for you to read some books onhow to think. It would help you enourmously. I welcome your departure from any of your trivial exchanges. Be insulted. That is what you get when you use more than one alias and you rely on an anonymous one as well.



    Last night I noticed this phony ‘scandal’ was playing on Fox News. And I immediately thought to myself that Professor Turley would be presenting it this morning. And here it is! Which suggests that rightwing media seems to almost coordinate in concocting these bogus ‘scandals’ to intimidate mainstream media.

    Barr’s statement that “history” is written by the winners” is absolutely dead-on. We know exactly what Barr meant. If Trump goes out like Herbert Hoover, and Republicans lose the Senate, history will judge this administration in unsympathetic terms. Almost anyone knowledgeable of history grasps this likelihood.

    The history of the Trump era will be written by Millennials. Writers who are 40 and younger today will have the last word on Donald Trump. In fact, because Trump is over 70, with generally older supporters, he and most of them will be gone in 20 years. Therefore a Trump-friendly historical narrative is really quite unlikely. And WIlliam Barr understands that. That explains the sheepish face Barr made, with a shrug, in saying, “History is written by the winners”.

    The fact that Barr then added that he feels his decision on Flynn was correct and justified doesn’t alter the substance of his statement on ‘winners’. That statement was still the unvarnished truth. The subsequent add-on really added very little. It was what one could term a ‘throwaway line’.

    This demand for an apology comes from rightwing forces who ‘know’ history will not be kind to Trump. Professor Turley must know that. And his insistence that Obama had Eric Holder abandon a case similar to Flynn’s is a gross deception! Holder abandoned a prosecution against a Republican that was pursued by a Republican-run Justice Department. Neither Holder nor Obama had any investment in the prosecution of Ted Stevens. Therefore to compare the Stevens case to Michael Flynn’s prosecution is willfully misleading.


    And if NBC is stupid enough to apologize, I might never watch “Meet The Press” again. “Face The Nation” and “This Week” are just as good in terms of content. I don’t have to watch a show that grovels to Trumpers.

    1. The stupid Farkas meme was elsewhere as well and in a link posted here yesterday. I guess JT hangs out in the same news slums as most of his followers here.

      No wonder.

    2. July Johnson wrote: “Neither Holder nor Obama had any investment in the prosecution of Ted Stevens.”

      You are correct. Neither Holder nor Obama had any ‘investment in the prosecution’ of Stevens. Why? Because DoJ had successfully swung a key Senate seat by prosecuting the senator in the crucial months before the election. Mission accomplished.

      1. Yes, Anonymous, that could be true. Yet It doesn’t dismiss the fact that it was the previous (Republican) DOJ that had prosecuted. Theoretically Bush’s Justice Department should have corrected the prosecution’s defective case.

    3. “And if NBC is stupid enough to apologize, I might never watch “Meet The Press” again.”

      That’s a good plan. Dont watch.

    4. “NBC OWES NO APOLOGY! And if NBC is stupid enough to apologize, I might never watch “Meet The Press” ”

      This sounds like a kid. Not all that disimilar from what we hear elsewhere. ‘If you don’t let me play with my toy I won’t eat and I will scream. Wow! Some of the intellect on this blog is appalling.

    5. The history of the Trump era will be written by Millennials. Writers who are 40 and younger today will have the last word on Donald Trump.

      Every time I might get the idea you’ve hit bottom and cannot utter anything more inane, you go out and prove me wrong.

      1. Absurd, tell us, how many Millennials are likely to become passionate Trump defenders 20 or 30 years from now. Do you honestly think the best and brightest young people today are viewing Trump in a sympathetic light?

    6. July Johnson:

      Turley is so deceptive, in fact, that NBC/MTP apologized citing exactly what Turley pointed out. So you’ve got that to think about when not watching MTP and Chuck Odd.

      1. Indeed, following the excellent example of Trump and Fox, mistakes are quickly owned and corrected.

        It’s an inspiration!

      2. Mespo: if you’re so concerned with truth and honesty, explain what this tweet is about. I’m right here in LA. We don’t know what this is about. Trump is just arbitrarily claiming a congressional race is being stolen without a shred of proof:


        Dems are trying to steal the Mike Garcia Congressional Race in California. Republicans, get out and VOTE for your terrific candidate, ASAP!

        6:52 AM · May 11, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

        1. Capt.:

          ” if you’re so concerned with truth and honesty, explain what this tweet is about.”
          Apparently, Garcia is polling ahead but the Dims are using their usual vote stealing ways by opening a new polling location in a Dim area. Typical moving of the goalposts after the rules are announced.

  8. No doubt JT gets his news straight from Fox where hyperbole and bias are never allowed.

    1. I wonder if BTB crying, “bu-bu-but Fox News!” should be considered with the same scorn and derision shown by mindless leftists when mocking conservatives by saying, “bu-bu-but her e-mails!”?

      How does that shoe fit, BTB, now that it’s on your foot?

      When unable to defend the untenable actions by Todd et. al, you can only point a flaccid, feeble, bony finger at Fox News–who had objectively zero to do with Todd’s story (or fable, if you will). I wonder why so many posters here hold up a finger to BTB’s posts? I’ll leave it to the reader to determine which finger.

    2. Book, they must be coordinating. One imagines a text or email went out to every Trump defender. It’s a blatant effort to intimidate mainstream media.

    3. Listen to this guy. Any intelligent person would think he was born as an idiot. He wasn’t, but birth was the high point of his intellect and he has deteriorated since.


      Why do loser Trump supporters think the visuals of YouTube video stills adds hilarious irony to these threads??

        1. Jerry, will the answer to your question make YouTube video stills funnier? I don’t see how.

  9. NBC is owned by Comcast aka Com party mouthpiece. While Comcast is the conglomerate owning NBC, Americans will NEVER be told the truth, nor will NBC offer any kind of an apology to their viewing audience. That’s the end of the line for seeking any kind of ‘sorries’. They will continue to stick out their middle finger at us Americans.

  10. Chuck Todd has proven over and over again that the media isn’t presenting the truth rather it is obliterating the truth to provide a basis for attacking thie present administration. There are those that do not bother to note that Chuck Todd’s video clips are arranged in such a fashion as to alter the spoken word of those he doesn’t like while he remains silent when Obama alters the truth about his administrations illegal use of the justice department.

    NBC is not a news organization.

  11. That was very polite but to distill it down to the well known and accepted facts he’s not a journalist he’s a propagandists and NBC is not a media source but an organ of the socialis far left and has nothing to do with Our Constitutional Republic and everything to do with shilling for his marxist leninist or worse masters. you can change the name and the Alphabet Soup but none of them are anything more or less than ‘enemies of our country and it’s Constitutional system of government. As one radio commentator used to stay, ‘Just shine the unbearable light of truth, justice, and the American Way on them’ and what do you find? Nothing.

  12. This is a sad reflection on those better educated and informed viewers that gorge themselves on NPR/MSM’s so called journalism. The universities and media outlets pumping out this anti-American propaganda should be treated as what they are: enemies of the state.

  13. Chuck Todd cannot spell journalism, much less be a journalist.

  14. Here would have been a more accurate picture of Ahmaud Arbery – his mug shot:
    BRUNSWICK, Ga. – A quick acting police officer in Brunswick stopped a teenager with a loaded gun from entering a high school basketball game Tuesday night.

    Police arrested 19-year-old Ahmaud Marquez Avery (pictured below), who is not a student at Brunswick.

    “The man ran through the parking lot. I tried to get him to stop as well. He would not stop for us,” said Glynn County Schools Chief of Police, Rod Ellis. “We ended up chasing him to the back of the school were other officers helped us apprehend him.”

    Ellis said the .380 caliber semi-automatic handgun slipped out of the teen’s pants.

    A parent, who did not want to be identified, told Channel 4 he saw the gun as he was about to enter the school gym. He said police were everywhere.

    “They were trying to keep everyone calm and away from the gun that was on the ground. They wouldn’t let anyone in or out of the gym,” said the parent.

    The basketball game continued without interruption while police arrested Avery.

    “The main thing is we stopped him from getting into the event,” Ellis said. “We don’t know what his intentions were but you know it’s never a good combination when you bring a weapon to a school event clearly when it’s posted that you can’t.”

    At Friday night’s basketball game, Chief Ellis said they added more officers and from now on, every person will be scanned with a metal detecting wand.

    Police said Avery is out of jail on bond.

    Two of the police officers suffered injuries. One has been treated for a fractured hand.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. You better take a pass on this one. This doesn’t look like a replay of hands up don’t shoot.

    2. Thanks Squeeky– That is interesting information and adds to the picture. In the edited video of the shooting it appears for just a moment that he lunged forward and grabbed the barrel of the shotgun. Maybe I have it wrong, but that is the way it looked. This case maybe is not as clear cut as we are supposed to believe. Good work on your part.

      1. Thanks! I think the white guys were probably wrong to try to confront him with guns, but Arbery brought his own death on himself by attacking them. If he had simply waited on the police, he would have been let go, and he could probably have sued their homeowners insurance for $50,000 or so for false imprisonment. But he reacted like too many blacks do and lashed out and attacked. I think he did not want to wait for the police because he knew he was up to no good casing the home under construction. Plus, he probably was the burglar to boot. Whatever, I do not think the McMichaels are guilty of murder.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Might be for manslaughter. I just read they shot 3 times. Usually one time with a shotgun is adequate, but perhaps the first couple only wounded him without stopping the guy. It could be argued they should not have carried a weapon to ask what he was doing, but what if he had a gun like he did on his previous arrest and they were unarmed? Too little information to unravel this, but I lean toward your thought, probably not murder.

          All other things being equal but the races reversed we know this would be handled very differently in the media.

          1. “I just read they shot 3 times. ”

            How many rounds, what type of weapon and how many shots per weapon. Were both shot at the same range?

            1. Allan: Good questions. At least one weapon was a shotgun. The video showed Avery with his hand on the barrel as if he were trying to gain control of it. This probably is not as simple as the race hustlers want. Clum is already saying Avery did not commit a felony by going into that house.
              Maybe not, but it was at least a trespass.

              1. Young, past actions help us predict future actions especially if within a close time frame. The report by squeeky changes perceptions but as I said earlier we need the forensics.

                1. Allan– For sure they need lawyers able to do the job and endure the torrent of abuse and threats sure to come their way.

    3. Maybe Chuck Todd will explain all of it. He and NBC have canned explanations for this type of incident.

  15. You know the whole rift between Obama and Flynn in the first place is too comical for words. Obama opposed Iraq, but proceeded to commit the same mistake in Libya and Syria. Flynn, like Bolton, generally enjoys inserting the United States into middle eastern intrigue. But Flynn stumbled into some lucid comments on Syria.

    “But in a recent interview on Al-Jazeera’s flagship talk-show ‘Head to Head,’ former DIA chief Lieutenant General (Lt. Gen.) Michael Flynn told host Mehdi Hasan that the rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of US support for Syrian insurgents whose core fighters were from al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

    Paragraph 7

    Of course the reason for this statement by Flynn is not do to enlightened virtuosity. He was simply advocating for Turkey.

    So you have an empty suit and a profiteer getting into a spat over Syria.

    1. Zero American troops were deployed to Libya and Syria, both were indigenous civil wars, and the cost to the US is on the order of 1/1000.

      1. Well as long as it was mainly only LIbyan and Syrian lives, and wasn’t in our interests any more than the invasion of Iraq was, I guess it’s all right then.

        1. Yeah, well, you know, if not for the 3rd strike you were this close to a home run.

          1. My goodness, at least the Billy Kristols, the Jennifer Rubins, the 3 amigos of Liebermann, McCain and Graham all the had the decency to be consistent on these 3 debacles.

      2. zero active duty and who knows how many CIA and State Department contractors. You know, the guys who were shooting it out with jihaadists to try and save the US abmassador

Comments are closed.