Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Funny

Sarah Sanders Laughs In Hateful CNN Host’s Face After Catching Him In Huge Lie During Live Interview

He attempted to refute but…

Published

on

Chris Cuomo must have really thought he had a “gotcha” moment when White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders agreed to an interview with him for his CNN show, “New Day.” CNN ratings have been sinking faster than the Titanic in recent times.

Routinely called out for selective coverage and significant bias, as well as flat out “fake news” Cuomo likely thought he could regain some credibility as a “serious journalist” by baiting Sanders. Cuomo did not disappoint launching into the expected diatribes and the usual lies regarding the Trump administration.

Cuomo asked Sanders if she liked her job as press secretary for President Donald Trump. Sanders naturally answered in the affirmative and went on to tout accomplishments by the Trump administration citing the strong economy and President Trump’s recent legislation benefiting veterans. Realizing he had no method of attack here, Cuomo then chose to wonder aloud, inquiring if Sanders believes the president’s contention with the media is sustainable.

Sounding much like junior high boy passing notes stating “Do you like me? Check ‘yes’ or ‘no’?” Cuomo asked: “Do you think that by saying, ‘We stink,’ that we don’t like veterans, that we are bad for America, the president says we are enemies of America, do you think that that works for you long-term?”

Trending: Sarah Sanders Slaps Back Hard At Former First Lady – ‘Your Husband Signed The Law’

Sanders all but laughed in his face and retorted sharply:
“ What I think is important to remember is that you guys get to ask the questions, but you can’t always complain about the answers,” Sanders shot back. “You constantly ask the same question over and over and over again and expect different answers and then get mad when the answers don’t change.”

Realizing this interview was not going in the direction he wanted it to go, Cuomo attempted to cut Sanders off, interjecting with: “Yeah, that’s the job, that’s the job!”

Sanders returns fire with a truth bomb Cuomo cannot refute, stating: “No, the job is to get information and to report the news!”

That must have been a bitter pill for Cuomo to swallow, but Sanders was not finished with her total annihilation of this journalistic hack. She adds:  “Unfortunately, you guys quit reporting the news. When I can read a news story and I have no idea what side of the story the reporter is on, that’s a good news story. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a lot of news that looks like that [on CNN].”

Sanders simply does not suffer fools, nor does she engage in silly word games where one side tries to convince the other that the grass is not indeed green. She refuses to engage in the media spectacle CNN’s Jim Acosta and April Ryan attempt to create during White House press briefings.

Naturally, Cuomo got his dander all up at Sanders’ suggestion that he is a mere opinion journalist and then attempted to make the ridiculous claim that Sanders does answer the public’s questions during White House press briefings.

Sanders was having none of Cuomo’s attempts to deflect. “I answer questions all day, every day,” Sanders retorted. “It’s what I spend every minute of the day doing. It’s why I’m sitting here at 9 o’clock at night answering questions to you.”

Cuomo is known for touting the leftist party line and citing approved propaganda from the Democratic party line for line. He has been caught in lie after lie, yet manages to keep his job at CNN because his brother is the governor of New York and his father was the former governor of the same. Without his family connections? He would be asking such riveting questions as, “Would you like fries with that?”

In 2015, Cuomo repeated the lie “a video started the Benghazi attack” siding with Hillary Clinton’s account of the events that occurred. He to this day denies any wrongdoing on the part of the Obama administration. The key to journalistic integrity is being willing to hold anyone and everyone accountable for their actions regardless of political affiliation. It seems Cuomo missed that memo.

Hot Air reported on Cuomo’s coverage of the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October of 2015:

“In preparation for this long-anticipated event, CNN’s Chris Cuomo took the opportunity to interview committee member Martha Roby (R – Alabama 2) regarding what we should expect out of this Q&A session. It’s definitely a newsworthy topic which has captured the nation’s attention, but Chris might have wanted to prepare a bit more before the interview. He managed to get nearly everything wrong with his questions and seemed genuinely shocked when he failed to fish out the answers he was looking for.

Here are just a few of the premises which Cuomo fed into the interview. Let’s see how he did.

Cuomo: “But then you get to legitimate questions of well, what else are you going to learn? You’ve had the secretary, the former secretary now, for over six hours. She spoke specifically to what she knew before, during and after. She gave you answers that may not have been satisfying to you, but she gave answers. She talked to you about the threat. She talked to you about her recognition of the threat. She talked to you about her response to the threat.”

That’s certainly a damning accusation. Unfortunately, there are just a few details which Cuomo got wrong.

Hillary Clinton has never testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for two and a half hours in January of 2013. (Worth noting that it was controlled by Democrats at the time.) She also testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee for three hours in the same month, which was more than two years before we got any of her emails.

Here’s another golden Cuomo moment:

“[Secretary Clinton’s] been the target. You’ve had members of your party, members of this committee, say that it is about her, they were going after her, you had Kevin McCarthy bragging about bringing down her poll numbers, you had that sentiment echoed by other Republican congressmen. So it’s not just me who’s bringing up this cynicism.”

That would make a great talking point except for the fact that the only two Republicans who have said anything of the sort are not on the committee and have no direct knowledge of anything that the committee has done.”

Just last week Cuomo made the wild claim that there was “proof of potential collusion” between Russia and the Trump campaign. Except, there isn’t, except maybe in Cuomo’s mind. Rather than actually look at the facts, Cuomo chose to go head to head with Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-R) who blew him out of the water exposing his propaganda peddling for the lies it is. Facts are pesky sometimes.

Jordan stated plainly the federal government lied when it obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. He also stated it relied on a false dossier to prop up its case during the course of his interview with Cuomo.

Cuomo attempted to refute:“They did disclose where the dossier came from. It is not all false allegations in that dossier.” Any judge worth the black robe he or she dons daily while sitting the bench and takes their pledge to ethics seriously would not approve a warrant if they knew the evidence was a bought and paid for unverified dossier by Hillary Clinton. Nevermind, there is an active and ongoing investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ) currently.

Jordan was incensed at Cuomo’s obvious lies and attempts to peddle propaganda and replies: “You know this to be the case even though you have never seen the FISA application yourself?”

Cuomo had nothing much to say after that, yet he still continues to promote the ridiculous and completely false narrative: “no one spied on the Trump campaign” even after Democrats were forced to publically acknowledge that it was true.
Cuomo and others like him seem to forget that there is a huge difference between “Freedom of the Press” and actual investigative reporting. It is the polar opposite of allowing “The Onion” or “Mad Magazine” to show up and attempt to interfere with the ability of actual journalists to have open and respectful communication between the American people and The White House in seeking answers to questions we have.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Culture

Melania Just Broke Her Silence On Trump-Trashing Omarosa And Drops The Hammer Hard!

Here comes the Boom!

Published

on

From the first time I saw President Trump hit the campaign trail, I never doubted that he adored Melania and she felt nothing but love and admiration for him. The left has constantly tried to allege that their marriage is in disarray and that Melania is getting ready to leave Trump at any moment. President Trump’s former aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, became one of the left’s minions in her new book “Unhinged,” where she claimed that the Trumps were on the verge of divorce.

At first, Melania seemed to have nothing much to say about the accusation. Her silence is now over and she’s dropping the hammer hard on the allegations by Omarosa. Melania’s office has issued a statement that solidly refutes claims by Omarosa that she is seeking a divorce from Trump. The statement suggests that Omarosa should be more grateful for the opportunities afforded to her by President Trump. There’s no arguing with that. Not only did Trump have her repeatedly on The Apprentice, he brought her on his White House team when her qualifications certainly didn’t merit it. He gave her a chance to serve her country and instead, she is serving herself.

Omarosa is a TV celebrity, not a marriage counselor. But that doesn’t stop her from trying to play one in real life. Evidently, the book insinuates that due to Trump’s alleged affairs, Melania can’t wait to dump him. That’s just laughable. “In my opinion, Melania is counting every minute until he is out of office and she can divorce him,” the former aide wrote. Then she really stepped over the line by suggesting that if the first lady were to divorce Trump while he was in office, he might counter by negating her citizenship. He can’t do that and anyone who knows anything about the law and the Constitution would tell you that. She’s just making stuff up and it’s not only entirely false, it’s disgusting.

Omarosa was obviously furious that Kelly fired her and that Trump let it happen. She’s being childish and petulant about it. Frankly, Kelly did the right thing. She thinks very highly of herself and because she feels she was slighted, she is turning on someone who was a very good friend to her. Way to bite the hand that feeds you.

Omarosa went on to address Melania’s fashion choices, which far outclass the TV reality star’s own fashion sense. She went after the “I really don’t care, do you?” jacket incident and had the nerve to claim it was meant to punish President Trump. Again, there is nothing to back that up and it doesn’t even make sense. I believe that happened after she left the White House so how would she even know? “I believe Melania uses style to punish her husband,” Omarosa writes. “At any time, if she so desired, she could humiliate him in public with small, ambiguous gestures, just as he’d openly humiliated her with his affairs and lascivious behavior for years.” Omarosa has no idea what Melania thinks and she has no right to pretend she does. She claims that she had a great connection with Melania. I highly doubt that assertion.

It didn’t take long for Melania to shoot down those claims. Her office indicated that they never really interacted with each other at all. Melania’s Communication Director Stephanie Grisham made that crystal clear by saying that the first lady “rarely, if ever, interacted” with Manigault Newman. Why would she? Their paths would not cross as Omarosa was an aide to Trump, not Melania. They certainly weren’t close friends. Grisham continued speaking for Melania, “It’s disappointing to her that she is lashing out and retaliating in such a self-serving way, especially after all the opportunities given to her by the president.” Very, very true.

Omarosa signed a non-disclosure agreement when she went to work in the White House. She has obviously broken the terms of that agreement and I would wager she is going to have legal troubles over all of this. And she should. This is not reality TV, this is the presidency and your actions have consequences. But her legal woes may not end there. A number of people that Omarosa has claimed were involved in incidents with the president are claiming that she is not telling the truth. She is making accusations with no proof to back them up and that will not end well for Omarosa. Her recording White House officials in the Situation Room is also something that will get her in legal hot water.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, is nixing a story about President Trump using racial epithets in addressing him. Pollster Frank Luntz also stated that Omarosa did not tell the truth when he was named as an individual who had heard President Trump use the n-word. “I’m in [Omarosa’s] book on page 149,” Lutz tweeted. “She claims to have heard from someone who heard from me that I heard Trump use the N-word. Not only is this flat-out false (I’ve never heard such a thing), but Omarosa didn’t even make an effort to call or email me to verify. Very shoddy work.”

I haven’t heard anyone from the White House, that has left or is there presently, that backs up Omarosa’s claims. Not one bit. A furious President Trump tweeted praise for General John Kelly firing her, “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!” Melania probably seconds that sentiment wholeheartedly. I know I do.

Continue Reading

Funny

Viewers Floored By What Happened After Fox News Host Ate Steak In Front Of Ultra-Liberal Vegan

The look in her eyes was pure evil!!

Published

on

Jesse Watters had some fun when he invited a doctoral candidate on his show to debate her about the effects of eating meat. His guest was Anne Delassio-Parson and she’s a candidate for getting her Ph.D candidate at Penn State. Her big thing? She thought that eating meat reinforced gender stereotypes. Sounds pretty stupid, right? Don’t worry, it gets better. The thought was that eating meat supports a “hegemonic masculinity” or a “meat-centric culture” but that’s also fairly unintelligent, right? It is because men and women both enjoy eating meat products and no one really looks at another man or woman and thinks anything different of them, of course, unless you’re a liberal with some strange identity problem.

Usually what happens is a man and woman decide what they want to eat and no one else really cares unless they’re eating monkey brains or something totally exotic that’s out of the norm. If a girl wants a double cheeseburger or a salad, then more power to them. If a guy wants to chomp a steak or have a milkshake, then more power to him. No one cares.

Either way, eating meat somehow became the topic of this bizarre woman who doesn’t seem to be the best product of Penn State. She’s certainly a better representative than Jerry Sandusky, but that’s not very hard to do.

They then talked about “doing vegetarianism” and “de-linking” meat from gender hegemony and all I could think of was “who cares?” Not me. I’m pretty sure no one living their life in any state of normalcy would care about the nonsense that this lady is spewing.

Here’s where it gets even better. Jesse Watters ate a steak right in front of her. BOOM! Absolutely hilarious and if it’s cooked any more than medium rare, then he better send it back. What’s better than that? The fact that it was recorded. Watch the Jesse Watters steak video below, then tilt your head back and laugh. Just remember folks – eat whatever you want. No one cares. It’s your life and your belly. Eat whatever makes you happy, but not so much that it makes you an obese Trump hating complainer like Michael Moore.

Fox News: “Jesse Watters on Saturday debated a doctoral candidate from Penn State University, who contended that eating meat reinforces gender stereotypes.

As FoxNews.com reported, Anne DeLessio-Parson published an article in the “Journal of Feminist Geography” after studying Argentina’s “meat-centric culture.”

An academic journal has published an article by a Ph.D. candidate at Pennsylvania State University that argues eating meat maintains a society where “hegemonic masculinity” is the norm.

“I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender,’” Anne DeLessio-Parson wrote. “Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.”

DeLessio-Parson theorizes that being a vegetarian in the South American nation is a political act that contributes to the destabilization of the gender binary, or the view that there are only two sexes, masculine and feminine.

“[V]egetarians defy attempts to hold them accountable to gendered social expectations,” she wrote. “Women, for example, assert authority over their diets; men embody rejection of the meat-masculinity nexus by adopting a worldview that also rejects sexism and racism.”

On “Watters’ World,” Watters challenged her on the claim, and enjoyed a late-night snack during the debate.

DeLessio-Parson said Watters was slightly incorrect when he said consuming meat “creates toxic masculinity” because the phenomenon is “already there.”

She said it “reinforces certain social structures, including patriarchy” through its “symbolism.”

Watters then produced some symbolism of his own, as a producer laid a plate of steak — “medium rare” — in front of him.

“Is this bad — that I’m eating meat?” he asked.

DeLessio-Parson said it would be more acceptable if he hunted or procured the meat himself, rather than “enjoying the benefit [with] the blood on someone else’s hands.”

“What if you’re just hungry, and the animals are there for us to enjoy?” he asked.”

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend