With the liberal media joining Democrats in the ongoing battle to save DACA and for no border wall, CBS and NBC ignored the killing of Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson at the hands of a drunk-driving illegal immigrant during their popular morning and evening shows Monday. Instead, CBS Evening News hyped Space X launching a Tesla Roadster into space and NBC Nightly News whined about how cold the WINTER Olympics were going to be.
The only major network news outlet to mention the tragic death, which occurred the morning of the Super Bowl, was ABC during Monday’s World News Tonight. “To the index of other news tonight. The alleged drunk driver accused in the death of an NFL player,” announced anchor David Muir during a news brief lasting 23 seconds. “Police say Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson and his Uber driver were struck and killed, standing on the emergency shoulder of I-70 in Indianapolis.”
Often times, the liberal media leave out the legal status of an illegal immigrant who commits a crime, but Muir didn’t do that. “Investigators arresting Manuel Orrego-Savala of Guatemala accusing him of living illegally here in the United States, adding he’s been deported twice before according to the authorities,” he noted.
According to a Fox News report on the killing, Orrego-Savala blew a 0.239, or three times the legal limit, during a blood alcohol test. “Drivers in Indiana are presumed intoxicated with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level,” Fox News’ Grey Norman wrote.
“Orrego-Savala fled the scene but was arrested shortly thereafter by the responding officer. He then gave police the alias of Alex Cabrera Gonsales,” the Fox News report added. “Jail records viewed by Fox News on Monday morning said Orrego-Savala, under the alias of Gonsales, was driving without a license.”
And to make the situation even worse: “A state trooper who responded to the crash also struck the body of one of the victims in the center lane when he slowed his cruiser down to investigate, according to FOX59.”
CBS did mention Jackson’s death at one point, but it seemed like they were doing their best to hide it because the only time they reported on it was at 4:12 a.m. Monday morning during CBS Morning News.
World News Tonight
February 5, 2018
6:53:07 PM Eastern [23 seconds]
DAVID MUIR: To the index of other news tonight. The alleged drunk driver accused in the death of an NFL player. Police say Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson and his Uber driver were struck and killed, standing on the emergency shoulder of I-70 in Indianapolis. Investigators arresting Manuel Orrego-Savala of Guatemala accusing him of living illegally here in the United States, adding he’s been deported twice before according to the authorities.
As President Trump gives his first State of the Union address, there is no doubt that it will receive an overwhelming amount of media coverage—but as is typical with the mainstream media, the most important issues are the ones that won’t be covered.
Here are five major topics both Trump and the mainstream media will blatantly ignore during the 2018 the State of the Union address:
1. Trump will brag about the economy—but the country’s billionaires were the ones whose wealth increased in 2017
A study conducted by the global charity Oxfam revealed that in 2017, 82 percent of the new wealth created was owned by the top 1 percent, “while 0 percent has gone to the world’s poorest 50 percent.”
Oxfam Chief Executive Mark Goldring said he believes, “The concentration of extreme wealth at the top is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a system that is failing the millions of hard-working people on poverty wages who make our clothes and grow our food.”
A similar trend has been seen in the United States where Trump has been eager to use a number of “record” stock market closes to prove the country’s economic health. However, a study from NYU economist Edward N. Wolff noted that the richest 10 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all stocks.
70 Record Closes for the Dow so far this year! We have NEVER had 70 Dow Records in a one year period. Wow!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 18, 2017
2. Trump may discuss the FISA memo, but there will be silence surrounding the staggering power he gave the FBI by signing the FISA Reauthorization Act into law
When Trump signed the FISA Reauthorization Act into law, he claimed that it was “NOT the same FISA law that was so wrongly abused during the election,” and that he would “always do the right thing for our country and put the safety of the American people first.”
However, reports noted that the government is actually following a pattern of legalizing practices that they have already been carrying out, which has been ongoing for years.
With the first new law in place, the FBI no longer has to apply for a warrant “when national security is involved, or when it determines that there is a ‘threat to life or serious bodily harm,” according to a report from the Intercept. The agency will also continue to have unlimited access to data collected by the NSA, even when it does not pertain to a criminal investigation.
3) The FBI performs those searches without a warrant.
4) The FBI does it so frequently they say the number is impossible to track.
5) The expanded surveillance powers Trump & Ryan are seeking protect the privacy of criminals under investigation, but not innocent Americans. #FISA https://t.co/Gf6Sr7xnjG
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 11, 2018
3. Trump will likely criticize the media’s ongoing attempts at keeping “Russiagate” alive, but his administration’s actual collusion with foreign governments won’t be addressed
As the mainstream media continues to push the narrative that Russian hackers helped Trump win the 2016 election, it is ignoring some of the most obvious moments of collusion with foreign governments that have occurred in the last year.
When Trump was on the campaign trail, he claimed that if he was elected, he would hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the role it played in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
However, once Trump was in office, his tune quickly changed, and Saudi Arabia became the first stop on his first foreign trip as president—paving the way for the completion of the largest single arms deal in U.S. history.
There is an abundance of evidence that high level Saudis were complicit in 9/11. The 28 pages show that. Why would we give them arms?
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 13, 2017
4. Trump will brag about his support for law enforcement, but the statistics showing that more than 100 people have been killed by police in 2018 will be ignored
Trump has always been vocal about his support for police, but he does not address the number of people killed by police, which stands at 105 deaths in the first 29 days of 2018, according to the Killed by Police database.
While the number of people killed by police was nearly 1,200 in 2017, the number of police officers who died on the job was at its second-lowest point in over 50 years. According to data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a total of 128 officers died on duty, 44 of whom were shot and killed. Nearly one-third fewer officers died of gunshot wounds this year when compared to 2016 when 143 officers died and 66 were shot and killed.
According to preliminary data, 128 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty this year, decreasing 10 percent over the 143 officers killed in 2016.
— NLEOMF (@NLEOMF) December 28, 2017
5. Trump will highlight the importance of “National Security,” but his administration’s foreign policy is creating the opposite
In many ways, the Trump administration’s foreign policy has continued to prolong the wars that were both started and continued by the Obama administration. However, the number of civilian causalities has skyrocketed in the last year, and the mainstream media has remained eerily silent.
Obama’s “war against ISIS,” resulted in anywhere from 2,300 to 3,400 civilian deaths, according to Airwars, an organization tracking deaths in the war against ISIS. In contrast, after just 9 months in office, Trump surpassed Obama’s murderous record with estimated numbers as high as 4,500 civilian deaths.
There is no doubt that the mainstream media will cover Trump’s State of the Union address, but given the coverage of Trump’s first year in office, it is not likely that his administration will actually be held accountable for the ways in which its decisions in 2017 have harmed the future of the United States.
Please support NewsBusters today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of The Media Research Center)
There are many theories about the best way to react to a crying baby, here are some of the effects of leaving them to “cry it out” backed up by science.
Aside from the obvious maternal feelings, wanting to show your child affection when they are experiencing something they do not understand just seems intuitively correct. However, there are many that believe giving attention to a child when distressed sets them up for a life of dependence and attention seeking.
The truth is, when you start to look, there isn’t any good evidence that supports the idea that leaving babies to cry is a good method for them gaining dependance. The idea came about in the 1880s when the field of medicine had become obsessed with hygiene and the potential of transmitting infections, this led to the conclusion that babies should not be continually touched. (Deborah Blum 2002)
Alongside this, it seems that the idea of leaving a baby to cry comes from more of a selfish motivation (the baby being an inconvenience) than anything else. This was led by John Watson in 1928 when he became president of the American Psychological Association. His school of thought was giving to much love and affection would result in a dependent and time consuming baby, despite intuition and evidence at the time showing the opposite to be the truth.
The government at the time advised that “the mother should stop immediately if her arms feel tired” because “the baby is never to inconvenience the adult.” And a baby older than six months “should be taught to sit silently in the crib; otherwise, he might need to be constantly watched and entertained by the mother, a serious waste of time.”
Before we get into some of the effects I think it is important to define what- leaving your baby to “cry it out” actually means. The method is one in which you emotionally detach from your child and leave them in distress, with the goal of teaching them that crying does not get you attention. This is very different from your baby crying for a short time, while you are occupied with something else.
So what does the evidence actually say about leaving your baby to cry it out?
Neglected Babies Have A Higher Chance Of Dependency Later On In Life.
It is thought that ignoring a child, will lead to them being more dependant, however, another school of thought is it could lead to them needing to raise their voice even louder to be heard. Creating a demanding child who has learned that they need to scream to get their needs met.
A 1994 study (Stein & Newcomb, 1994) showed that caregivers who regularly respond to their babies needs preventing crying and distress are far more likely to have children who are independent than those who are left.
Babies Are Only Learning To “Externally” Manage Distress
Research conducted at the University of North Texas looked at 25 babies ranging in age from 4 to 10 months. The infants took part in a five-day sleep training program, in which the babies were left to cry during sleep time. The researchers took saliva samples and measured cortisol levels.
As a result they found that: Overall, outward displays of internal stress were extinguished by sleep training. However, given the continued presence of distress as evidenced by their physiological response, infants were not learning how to internally manage their experiences of stress and discomfort.
Crying For Prolonged Periods Can Lower Your IQ
A study led by Dr. Rao from the National Institutes of Health concluded: “Excessive, uncontrolled crying that persists beyond 3 months of age in infants without other signs of neurological damage may be a marker for cognitive deficits during childhood.”
The study also found that the children with prolonged crying in the first three months of life “had an adjusted mean IQ that was 9 points lower than the control group” and “significantly poorer fine motor abilities”.
Under Nurtured Children Have Genes Turned Off For Life
Darcia Narvaez Ph.D. shared in her article “Dangers of “Crying It Out” that “In studies of rats with high or low nurturing mothers, there is a critical period for turning on genes that control anxiety for the rest of life. If in the first 10 days of life you have a low nurturing rat mother (the equivalent of the first 6 months of life in a human), the gene never gets turned on and the rat is anxious towards new situations for the rest of its life, unless drugs are administered to alleviate the anxiety.” Narvaez linked this with the work of Michael Meaney who says “there are hundreds of genes affected by nurturance. Similar mechanisms are found in human brains–caregiver behavior matters for turning genes on and off.”
Touch Stimulates Growth Hormones
In the book “The genetic basis for touch effects” Saul Schaunberg talks about the effects when mothers stop touching their infants. Schaunberg concluded that a lack of touch can result in the halt of DNA synthesis, growth hormone diminishing and your baby entering “survival mode.”
Darcia Narvaez Ph.D also touched upon this saying:
- Babies grow from being held. Their bodies get dysregulated when they are physically separated from caregivers.
- Babies indicate a need through gesture and eventually, if necessary, through crying. Just as adults reach for liquid when thirsty, children search for what they need in the moment. Just as adults become calm once the need is met, so do babies.
- There are many long term effects of undercare or need-neglect in babies (e.g., Bremmer et al, 1998; Blunt Bugental et al., 2003; Dawson et al., 2000; Heim et al 2003).
Neural Pathways Are Damaged
Distress can lead to the conditions for damage to the brain’s synapses, if we then take into account the undeveloped brain of a baby this could potentially lead to an increased risk for these conditions.
Darcia Narvaez Ph.D says:
“When the baby is greatly distressed,it creates conditions for damage to synapses, the network construction which is ongoing in the infant brain. The hormone cortisol is released. In excess, it’s a neuron killer but its consequences many not be apparent immediately (Thomas et al. 2007). A full-term baby (40-42 weeks), with only 25% of its brain developed, is undergoing rapid brain growth. The brain grows on average three times as large by the end of the first year (and head size growth in the first year is a sign of intelligence, e.g., Gale et al., 2006).”
She continues that this can lead to the neurons potentially being “wiped out” during these times of stress. Which in turn could lead to stress reactivity being established as a pattern for life.
Babies can obviously become an inconvenience to the life we are used to, but this is the choice we make when having a child. Babies need love, attention and to be cared for. Not for us to go against every part of our intuitive feeling, just so we can hope to train them into obedience. Everyone has their own parenting method and it could be argued that there is no right method, however, leaving a baby to “cry it out” appears not be a method that is conductive of the growth of the next generation! Thanks for reading and please share this article! Much love, Luke!
Image Copyright: leungchopan / 123RF Stock Photo
I am Luke Miller the author of this article, and creator of Potential For Change. I like to blend psychology and spirituality to help you create more happiness in your life.Grab a copy of my free 33 Page Illustrated eBook- Psychology Meets Spirituality- Secrets To A Supercharged Life You Control Here
Source Article from https://truththeory.com/2018/01/24/heres-happens-ignore-crying-baby/
As the controversy-filled 2017 NFL season was set to come to an end in a couple of weeks, the league found itself engulfed in controversy Tuesday when they banned an ad from a veterans group asking people to “please stand” for the national anthem. It was a truly sad story, but the none of the major network news outlets (ABC, CBS, and NBC) felt the need to report it to their viewers during their evening broadcasts.
While the liberal networks were drooling over the recently announced Oscar nominations, Fox News Channel’s Special Report was going the veterans group justice. “New England and Philadelphia will play on the field, but there is another battle taking place involving the NFL, veterans, and the national anthem,” announced anchor Bret Baier as he introduced the segment.
“The NFL has rejected a $30,000 print ad from a veterans group for the games program that addressed the issue with these two words: Please stand,” reported Fox News’ media analyst Howard Kurtz. “Amvets, founded by World War II veterans, had already modified the wording of the request of the company handling the program, but the league has final say. And Amvets now accuses the NFL of corporate censorship.”
Amvets National Commander Marion Polk laid it all out for Fox News. “The NFL, bottom line, just denied us our opportunity for free speech,” he explained. “We didn’t place this ad, please stand, for any political reason whatsoever. It was our way of just getting the American public to stand in their beliefs.”
As reported by Kurtz, despite the Amvets’ non-political intentions, the NFL asserted that the program had “never been a place for advertising they could be considered by some as a political statement.” But it was clear that the NFL was shutting down those they saw as opposing the players: “The NFL naturally wants the day’s focus on the Patriots and Eagles, not political ads. But since any on-field protest will draw huge media coverage, the league does seem to be blocking the other side’s message.”
Kurtz also noted how rough the year had been for the NFL because of their position to back their protesting players. “It’s been a tough season for the NFL with sinking ratings and constant controversy over protesting players who kneel during the national anthem,” he recalled. “And that controversy is now casting a shadow on the league’s premier showcase: the Super Bowl.”
It’s no wonder the liberal networks didn’t care about what happened to the veterans because they enthusiastically took the side of the protesting players. When President Trump first went to battle with the NFL, ABC and NBC claimed Trump was using racially coded rhetoric. And as Puerto Rico was just beginning their insanely long road to recovery after Hurricane Maria, they elevated the spat with 3.6 times more airtime than the crisis (92 minutes to 25 minutes).
As with most political subjects, the networks picked their side and supported it over everything else, including veterans.
Fox News Channel
January 23, 2018
6:38:05 PM Eastern
BRET BAIER: Welcome back to the White House. You may have heard the Super Bowl is coming a week from Sunday, Super Bowl LII . New England and Philadelphia will play on the field, but there is another battle taking place involving the NFL, veterans, and the national anthem. Fox News media analyst and host of Fox’s Media Buzz Howard Kurtz fills us in.
[Cuts to video]
HOWARD KURTZ: It’s been a tough season for the NFL with sinking ratings and constant controversy over protesting players who kneel during the national anthem. And that controversy is now casting a shadow on the league’s premier showcase: the Super Bowl. The NFL has rejected a $30,000 print ad from a veterans group for the games program that addressed the issue with these two words: Please stand. Amvets, founded by World War II veterans, had already modified the wording of the request of the company handling the program, but the league has final say. And Amvets now accuses the NFL of corporate censorship.
MARION POLK: The NFL, bottom line, just denied us our opportunity for free speech.
KURTZ: An NFL spokesman said the big game has “never been a place for advertising they could be considered by some as a political statement.” He said the super bowl will salute vets of the military on the field, at the NFL had asked Amvets to consider alternative wording, “Please honor our veterans,” the group didn’t respond in time.
POLK: We didn’t place this ad, please stand, for any political reason whatsoever. It was our way of just getting the American public to stand in their beliefs.
KURTZ: President Trump kicked off a season of controversy by tweeting about the kneeling players and personally denouncing them.
DONALD TRUMP: Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say get that son of a [bleeped] off the field right now?
[Cuts back to live]
KURTZ: The NFL naturally wants the day’s focus on the Patriots and Eagles, not political ads. But since any on-field protest will draw huge media coverage, the league does seem to be blocking the other side’s message.
In an official statement on Friday, the Department of Justice announced the indictment of former Maryland executive Mark Lambert on “11 counts related to foreign bribery, fraud and money laundering scheme.” The indictment effectively tied Lambert to the Uranium One scandal because his alleged illicit activity involved JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), an arm of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation which now owns both TENEX and Uranium One. Despite the importance of the new indictment, the major three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) had been dead silent.
According to the DOJ press release, which was citing the indictment:
Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX.
All of which were allegedly in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The press release also noted that “Lambert’s former co-president, Daren Condrey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, and Vadim Mikerin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering involving violations of the FCPA.”
Where the major three networks failed, Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends didn’t. “An indictment in the Uranium One scandal, Mark Lambert the former head of a Maryland transit firm is accused of bribing Russians for nuclear contracts,” announced co-host Steve Doocy and he was introducing Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“Allegedly he was giving kickbacks to TENEX officials who were sharing proceeds with other Russians who were involved in the uranium industry here in the United States,” Fitton explained. “And the reason they were involved in the uranium industry here in the United States, and actually had expanded involvement, was because of the Uranium One-related decision-making made by the Obama administration.”
The Clintons fit into this puzzle because people with ties to the Russian uranium agency, as Fitton recalled, sent “tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation in order to make sure that the right decisions would be made by the State Department under Hillary Clinton that would allow them to expand their activities here in the United States.”
The Uranium One deal was ultimately approved by Clinton’s State Department and the Obama administration despite the fact that the FBI was well aware of such bribery activities by the Russians were underway. That was another story the networks failed to cover properly.
Interestingly, the indictment against Lambert came nearly a month after Attorney General Jeff Sessions order federal prosecutors to review the FBI’s handling of the Uranium One deal. “A senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the initial FBI investigation told NBC News there were allegations of corruption surrounding the process under which the U.S. government approved the sale. But no charges were filed,” NBC mentioned at the time.
It’s unclear if this indictment would be the first of many and it’s unclear just how far up the chain the FBI’s inaction on prosecutions went.
The relevant portion of the transcript is below:
Fox News Channel
Fox and Friends
January 15, 2018
6:17:15 AM Eastern
STEVE DOOCY: An indictment in the Uranium One scandal, Mark Lambert the former head of a Maryland transit firm is accused of bribing Russians for nuclear contracts. So, what does it mean for the investigation? Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has been — has forced opened many of the probes based on his Freedom of Information Act lawsuits and he joins us live from D.C. Good morning to you. Thanks for joining us on this holiday.
TOM FITTON: You’re welcome. How are you?
DOOCY: I’m doing okay. This Mark Lambert character who headed up this trucking firm in Maryland, money laundering, it sounds like conspiracy, wire fraud. Who is this guy?
FITTON: Well, he had contracts with the Russian-owned state uranium company essentially – TENEX and allegedly he was giving kickbacks to TENEX officials who were sharing proceeds with other Russians who were involved in the uranium industry here in the United States. And the reason they were involved in the uranium industry here in the United States, and actually had expanded involvement, was because of the Uranium One-related decision-making made by the Obama administration.
Made despite them knowing that this type of activity was going on. Sort of bribery kickback schemes that are endemic in Russia and Russia-related industries no matter where they are operating. And secondly, them sending tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation in order to make sure that the right decisions would be made by the State Department under Hillary Clinton that would allow them to expand their activities here in the United States.
DOOCY: And ultimately the deal was approved and that fast-forwards us to this point. A lot of members of Congress on the Republican side were upset that this was not thoroughly investigated and, in fact, Tom, I believe it was in December, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions said he encouraged the Department of Justice to reopen the case. Is this indictment a byproduct of that or do we know?
FITTON: We don’t know for sure but I don’t think it’s coincidental a few months after it’s reported that the fact that the Justice Department under Obama was hiding this in plain sight from the American people and certainly hiding key information from Congress. And then the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions responds: “Hey, we are going to take another look at this.” There’s a new indictment to follow up on an indictment that had been sitting out there or a conviction sitting out there since 2015.
FITTON: This is about, in the end, what steps they are going to take about what happened with Hillary Clinton. Now we got the bribery going on with the Russian transportation here in the United States. Got Uranium One side of it, is the Clinton gang going to be investigated by this Sessions Justice Department as aggressively as it ought to happen?
On Monday, former Florida Democratic Congresswoman Corrine Brown was sentenced to five years in prison for using her fake charity, that was supposed to help poor students, to funnel money into her personal bank accounts. According to reports, “she used for more than $300,000 in personal expenses, including tickets for N.F.L. games and a Beyoncé concert.” Despite how disgusting her crime was, the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) failed to cover it since the sentencing.
As reported by The New York Times, “A federal judge handed down the sentence in a Jacksonville, Fla., courtroom, excoriating Ms. Brown, 71, for abusing her powerful position in the House of Representatives for ‘entitlement and greed’ to support a lavish lifestyle.”
The Times noted Brown’s historic career as one of the first African-Americans to be elected in Florida for a position in national politics and her advocacy for civil rights and the poor. But they also suggested that she exploited her past: “Because of that legacy, the charity, One Door for Education, may have seemed to donors as an extension of her passion.”
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
“Brazen barely describes it,” the Times quoted the federal judge. And he was right, as the explanation of the crime proves:
Ms. Brown, along with two other people, collected more than $833,000 in charitable donations, telling benefactors that their money would help students pay for college and allow schools to receive computers. But One Door for Education did nothing of the sort.
Instead, the donations were funneled into Ms. Brown’s personal bank accounts and toward extravagant items. About $330,000 of the charity’s donations paid for events that included a Florida golf tournament, professional football games and a luxury stadium box for a Beyoncé concert.
The complete blackout on Brown by the networks wasn’t really surprising. When it comes to the liberal media’s double standard in regards to political corruption, the Media Research Center has the proof in spades. As Rich Noyes exposed on Monday, the networks hyped GOP sexual harassment scandals 2 to 1 against the Democrats. And Mike Ciandella showed how in the first 24 hours of the Roy Moore allegations breaking they dedicated more time to that story than in the two months of the Bob Menendez bribery trial.
Over the weekend, it was discovered that Special Counsel Robert Mueller kicked a veteran FBI agent, named Peter Strzok, off his team for sending text messages that were disparaging of President Trump. But on Monday, new information broke about just who the agent actually was. Apparently, he was responsible for turning down former FBI Director Comey’s language when he was announced he would not recommend charges be brought against Hillary Clinton in her e-mail investigation. That interesting tidbit was blacked out of the reports in the evening broadcasts of CBS and NBC.
During their morning broadcasts, both CBS This Morning and NBC’s Today mentioned Strzok’s removal from the investigation team. But come Monday evening, NBC Nightly News failed to mention the new development when reporting on the agent’s removal, while CBS Evening News didn’t mention the Special Counsel at all.
ABC’s World News Tonight was the only one in the Big Three to report the new details of Strzok’s past. “ABC News has also now confirmed from a Source that Strzok played a key role in how then FBI Director James Comey announced the results of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation,” reported Anchor David Muir after recalling what broke over the weekend.
Surprisingly, Muir actually went on to explain what Strzok did to lessen the political/legal blow to Clinton: “Recommending that Comey describe Clinton’s actions as, quote, “extremely careless,” rather than, quote, ‘grossly negligent.’ Now, the significance is that it’s a felony to mishandle classified information, quote, ‘in a grossly negligent way.’”
Later in the night, after the networks were off the air, The Daily Caller uncovered even more damning information about Strzok. “The FBI agent who was fired from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation team for sending anti-Donald Trump text messages conducted the interviews with two Hillary Clinton aides accused of giving false statements about what they knew of the former secretary of state’s private email server,” reported Chuck Ross.
As Ross wrote, the differences in the results of Strzok’s Trump investigation versus his Clinton one were shocking. “The starkly different outcomes from Strzok’s interviews — a felony charge against Flynn and a free pass to Mills and Abedin — are sure to raise questions from Republicans about double-standards in the FBI’s two most prominent political investigations,” he explained.
Since neither CBS nor NBC wanted to report Strzok’s positive involvement the Clinton e-mail investigation, it will be interesting to see if they decide to report on The Daily Caller’s findings.
ABC being the one to actually mention Strzok’s connection to the Clinton e-mail investigation was indeed surprising. But it might have something to do with the fact that ABC News President James Goldston ripped into his staff Monday morning for their abysmal reporting on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s plea deal.
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
World News Tonight
December 4, 2017
6:36:22 PM Eastern [39 seconds]
DAVID MUIR: And one more development tonight involving the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s team tonight. A veteran FBI agent who was removed from the Russia investigation. We learned that Robert Mueller removed Peter Strzok back in August after learning that Strzok had sent potentially anti-Trump text messages. ABC News has also now confirmed from a Source that Strzok played a key role in how then FBI Director James Comey announced the results of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. Recommending that Comey describe Clinton’s actions as, quote, “extremely careless,” rather than, quote, “grossly negligent.” Now, the significance is that it’s a felony to mishandle classified information, quote, “in a grossly negligent way.”