You Can’t Complain About Liberal Media Bias Again, Ever

Without fail, every day I post about the Russian government’s propaganda campaign to influence voters, I am told:

“There’s no evidence of a single changed vote.”

When I clarify I never claimed a vote was physically altered, they counter:

“There’s no proof of a single voter changing their vote because of it.”

If propaganda and misleading information have no effect on voters, then all political campaigns, dishonest advertising, and even the “liberal media bias” has no effect whatsoever, on anyone. This also means that logically-speaking, all campaign finance laws are moot, since they needlessly try to avoid something that has no effect on voters.


The featured photo above is beyond ironic, in that case.

So, don’t ever complain about bias again, ever. If you do, I’m going to ask you:

“Is there evidence of a single changed vote?”

When you object to the question, I’m going to clarify:

“There’s no proof of a single voter changing their vote because of ‘fake news.'”

If this is true, what are you worried about then?

But Trump Hires The Best People

Either he’s powerful, or he’s gullible. Either he’s a great manager, or a bad one. He cannot be both.

For what it’s worth, Trump doesn’t appear to regret his hiring choices, but his cult base seems to think he’s being played.

Yet, if he hires the best people, why did he lose Michael Flynn, one of his closest aides and National Security Advisor? Reince Preibus? Ryan “Puerto Rico Lineman” Zinke, Tom Price, Steve Bannon… and Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates? And what the heck happened with Scaramucci?

The list of those he’s hired, then had to fire is no longer just a chyron of cable news, it’s an actual list.

Today, the President told the world that the Mueller indictments announced this morning are for crimes from “years ago,” and says Manafort’s role in the campaign was a small one.

This is simply untrue. No one likes the word “lie,” but call it what you want: the indictment includes crimes committed last summer, during the campaign, and Manafort’s role was a large one. He was hired March 29 to run the campaign. In every way.

Here’s what Trump said at the time:

“Paul [Manafort] is a great asset and an important addition as we consolidate the tremendous support we have received in the primaries and caucuses, garnering millions more votes than any other candidate. Paul Manafort, and the team I am building, bring the needed skill sets to ensure that the will of the Republican voters, not the Washington political establishment, determines who will be the nominee for the Republican Party. I look forward to winning the nomination, and ultimately the presidency in order to Make America Great Again.”

And here’s what I said at the time:

“The man doesn’t hide that he plays the card tables across the globe. His digital rolodex swerves the topographical surface of earth from French presidential candidates and African rebel force commanders to Ukrainian oligarchs and American senators. He doesn’t just rub shoulders with dictators and arms dealers, or lobby on behalf of Saudi princes, he runs PR for their organizations – when he’s not fraternizing with them. Think: OLIVIA POPE WITH A BLACK HAT – the Lord of War, and masseuse of criminal legacies. This is the master of Donald trump’s machine today.”

Manafort’s greatest asset was to network the world’s most powerful with the world’s most degraded, and to run PR and campaigns for them. But somehow it was overlooked that his resume’s crown jewel was to elect a pro-Putin Ukrainian president through questionable means. Or, perhaps that’s why he was hired. First, as campaign chairman, then, as manager when he pushed Corey Lewandowski aside to take over the entire campaign a month later.

At this exact moment, trump was teasing the Russians to hack servers on national TV. Donald, Jr., Kushner and Manafort were meeting with Russians about “adoption.” A now-dead GOP operative was communicating with Wikileaks about finding Hillary’s emails. And Roger Stone (Manafort’s longtime business partner and friend) was messaging Guccifer 2.0 about the Wikileaks dump that month. This isn’t “liberal fake news.” It’s on FoxNews. It’s not denied.

The only Russia-connected hires he still has on board are Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (Rosneft/Exxon oil field) and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross (Bank of Cyprus). Both of which stand to earn billions among their small circles if sanctions are lifted in the Arctic.

Yeah, it’s all coincidence. And it’s not Trump’s responsibility that he hired all these “great people.” Nah. This is all Hillary.


Trump Admin Not Enforcing Russia Sanctions Passed by Congress

The Trump administration is not implementing the sanctions passed almost unanimously by Congress in July, and the leaders of the Senate Armed Services committee are not happy about it.

The bill, passed in the wake of proven Russian meddling in our election last year, was signed under strong opposition from the President. Sens John McCain and Ben Cardin sent a letter to the President 12 days after the deadline, urging him to follow through on identifying which entities were going to be sanctioned. That was 13 days ago. The president is now four weeks overdue on this providing this list, and is not responding to requests for an explanation of the delay.

The sanctions go much further than the ones ordered last December in response to initial awareness of Russia’s meddling, primarily because of the detail of that meddling that became public during GOP-led investigations into the election.

The bill outlined for sanction entities that:

  • undermine US cybersecurity on behalf of the Russia government
  • invest certain amounts in Russia’s energy export pipelines
  • conduct “significant” transactions with Russian defense and intelligence agencies (though this will come into effect six months from now)
  • commit, or assist in, serious human rights abuses
  • commit acts of “significant” corruption
  • provide support to the Syrian government to acquire arms
  • invest, or facilitate the investment of, $10 million or more in the Russian government’s privatization of any state-owned asset in a one-year period that could unfairly benefit government officials or their associates.

The sanctions went further to detail a dozen types of sanctions which should be imposed upon such entities, once identified, including the revoking US visas, restricting exports and freezing money or property.




Sen. Flake Won’t Seek Reelection, in Speech: “I Am Holier Than None”

“I rise today to say: enough.”

This afternoon, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) announced he will bow out of the reelection for his senate seat. While in a fierce battle of words with the president the last few months, he clearly had a long game here, publishing a book in August titled “Conscience of a Conservative,” which opened party wounds immediately upon it’s release.

In taking to the Senate floor, Sen. Flake held nothing back in criticizing the current state of politics and directly chastising the president, by title in his speech. At times emotional, often firm, he appealed to our values in a way that disparaged no one, but focused on particular behaviors.

Take the time to read the entire thing, and consider his words carefully, regardless of whether you stand with or against President Trump.


Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.

Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.

In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.

We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country – the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.

None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.

Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.

It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? — what are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.

Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.

But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseum — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.

If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters – the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”


Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing—until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.
In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.
When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.
Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.
These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously, and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them, or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.
Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.
The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?
The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.
I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.
I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.
To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.
It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.
There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.
We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.
This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a heathy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.
I plan to spend the remaining fourteen months of my senate term doing just that.
Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.
I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today, and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
UPDATE: in an interview following his remarks, Sen Flake was asked about those who say he was broken by President Trump, he responded, “oh, I’m still standing. I will tell you when I would be broken. It is if I were to say that the path to reelection is to embrace the president’s policies that I disagree with, and condone his behavior, which nobody should condone. That would be a broken man who does that. I feel good about where I am.”

WaPo: Harvey Weinstein Helped Pay the Clinton’s Legal Bills

Once I saw the headline, I remembered: Harvey Weinstein was one of those Hollywood liberals who helped the Clintons cover their legal bills in the 90’s, and the Washington Post was the outlet that broke it.

Yes, the ironic fakenews bourgeoisie is sharing a WaPo story. Not really “in the tank” after all. Especially now, with all the attention Weinstein is getting lately. It’s been fairly easy to throw a stick and hit another Harvey story, so there’s no point in belaboring the topic. However, the story does remind the electorate how deep the Clinton’s network was built over the years. Over the years, Bill and Hillary Clinton have received nearly $30,000 in donations from Weinstein.

Of course, Harvey wasn’t alone. The Clinton Legal Defense fund, established in Arkansas by Clinton family friend David Pryor, saw over 17,000 donors, 62 of which gave the maximum $10,000. It was a list of who’s who, including Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, Michael Douglas, Ron Howard, Norman Lear, Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw-Spielberg as well as studio executives Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, and Weinstein. By law, the operation was not allowed to solicit donations, but was promoted heavily at the time through Hollywood circles. The fund was closed in 1997, leaving the Clintons with more than $3 million in outstanding legal expenses.

It was a nice thought while it lasted. And apparently, it attracted some tawdry characters with it.

“Birds of a feather,” you might say.



BREAKING: President Threatens FCC License Challenge Over Latest NBC Report

In a constantly-evolving news cycle, the latest target of President Trump’s Twitter account is a favorite of his: NBC. Issuing a lengthy report this morning, they revealed that the comment drawing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s ire in July was Trump’s assertion that we have a tenfold increase in our nuclear stockpile. It was in response to this, and other tense moments that Tillerson is reported to have called the President a “f***ing moron.”

Oh, so that’s why.

The report was written by four journalists, and is backed by three sources who were in the room at the time. According to the piece, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of the State Department were part of a meeting of top military brass, and they were taken aback by the comment from the President. Military leaders told the President that there are legal and practical obstacles to such a buildup, and it was likely unnecessary, because our military position in the world is stronger than in past, when our arsenal was still growing. We have several treaties around the world limiting our expansion of the nuclear stockpile.

But, the report that he asked about an increase clearly got under the President’s skin, as he responded in the last hour – not surprisingly – on Twitter, this time threatening the FCC license of NBC, and comparing them to CNN. He calls them both “fake news” any time they report negative news on the administration.


At issue may be semantics, as the officials present were quoted as saying the president’s comments came during a slide presentation on nuclear stockpiles showing we had over 32,000 nuclear warheads in the 1960’s. President Trump said he wanted us to have that many now. The U.S. currently has just under 4,000. The “nearly tenfold” headline is drawn from the simple math between the two numbers.

This is in contrast to then-candidate Trump’s comments in December 2015, when he stated during a CNN interview in Milwaukee, “I don’t want more nuclear weapons.” Although, he’s left military observers in confusion, as he’s suggested “changes” to nuclear non-proliferation treaties before becoming President.

The chain of stories has left the White House in an awkward place. First, the report came out that Sec Tillerson once called the President a “f***ing moron,” to which Trump called it “fake news.” Then, the press continued to expand on the report and while questioning the President about Tillerson’s non-denial denial, Trump said “if it’s true,” he challenges Sec Tillerson to an IQ test match, something Press Sec Sarah Sanders called “a joke.” Now, with this report, we see some of what caused Tillerson to allegedly use the language following the meeting.

For it’s part, NBC is standing it’s ground, and defending it’s report. In the midst of the contentious relationship between the President and the press corps, editors have been making their journalists gather three, sometimes four or more sources on stories before publication. Although, the White House is leaking so much over the last nine months, it hasn’t been that hard to find them.

UPDATE 3:37pm: During Oval Office remarks at a press conference with Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the President went further, saying “disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.”

Yeah, that’s how it works, Mr. President.

The “Fake News” Narrative Is An Old Story

This #FakeNews madness is a headache. The term, coined to describe actual fake news sites that publish not-obvious parody has been co-opted by my fellow conservatives to describe anything perceived to be not conservative. It’s most popular among those for whose deceiving it actually described.

In fact, the last two years social media proliferated with fabricated or purposely exaggerated stories, ironically claiming actual news orgs were fake.  We also now know that the majority of these websites were fabricated, and even promoted at cost by Russian interests. But we ate them up, cuz… “HILLARY!”

It led an entire section of the voting public to believe only subjective truth. It could be said that many of us in the conservative media world became that which we fought: a self-confirming bias that focused on traffic and influence, rather than the truth.

Journalism is a craft. It’s authority is often driven by those most passionate about it. Nearly every journalist you’ll find wants the truth, not their vision of it. Not to say some won’t stray. Some will, and always have. But it’s rare. Real journalists can’t sleep. They ache during the day when they can’t write a story. They hate not having that last piece of information they need to confirm something. They hate being lied to. They’re VERY good BS detectors. Some veterans call it a “disease” you can’t escape.


First of all, to me there’s a difference between the “press,” and “media.” The “press” means delivering substance, from digging in public information files and conducting boring interviews to sitting in mundane public meetings. The “media” to me has always symbolized the latest foray into sensationalism, and focuses on audience over substance.

The latter pays the bills, so outlets have almost always been some combination of the two. Some focus on one over the other.

In the late 18th and early 19th century, most of the press was consolidated in a few major publications, usually sponsored by political parties. Particularly during campaigns, papers got vicious. Occasionally, they’d flat out lie without much recourse. But even then, the founders insisted first on freedom of the press in the constitution. Since they were mostly political, this clearly involved campaign behavior.

Things changed during the early to mid-1800’s, with the advent of the “penny press,” brought by increases in technology and communication. During this time, democratization of the press resulted in hundreds of publications and various perspectives, along with misinformation. But, still a valuable tool of accountability, and check on power.

Late in the 19th century, and into the middle of the 20th, “yellow journalism” was born, as publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst consolidated these papers again, under their respective umbrellas, for the purpose of harnessing political and economic power. (Yes, ironically, Pulitzer supported dishonest news because it sold well. So did Hearst. “Pulitzer prize” was established by his fortune to reward journalist he would likely have never hired. 😉) Modern “tabloid” media was born, as graphics and eye catching front pages became the driving source of most papers.

This of course was disrupted with new technology again, as radio and television in the early 20th century put strains on the traditional press mechanism. People wanted different and new perspectives. However, consolidation set in again over the next several decades, as these entities became similar to each other. There is some debate about what led to this “virtual consolidation” in mentality. I believe the strong nationalistic vibe after the war, combined with a natural trust that followed in the next couple of decades aided this.

While it has its downsides, this consolidation pattern we’ve begun seeing does eliminate inconsistency of public information. But it also led to negligence in government. (See: Vietnam war, Nixon, corruption schemes)

Enter the next technological revolution in the 1990’s: the internet. It democratized the press even further than the 19th century did, leading to more and more opinion and sensationalism (read: the NEW yellow journalism), and less and less *tradecraft* among journalists. This is where we are in 2017.

However, if history is our guide, we will once again see a consolidation of these various outlets in the years ahead. So, are we at the tail end of this democratization pattern, or still in the middle of it?

Regardless of the patterns, the free flow of information, and public awareness has consistently grown. I think that is a good thing.

Throughout history, public trust in the press has gone back and forth, and often for good reason. But, the journalism trade has stayed consistent. It maintains certain standards that you can bank on. Does bias exist? Sure, among writers AND readers alike. (That means you too!) An editor can omit, exaggerate or even tilt a headline or narrative. But actual “fake news” is very rare among the more established outlets. As long as journalists are human, they will always make mistakes, but they rarely flat out lie. Doing so would end their job. The elements you should look for in deciphering truth is not that it confirms your own bias, but that it employs a few standards that have separated the wheat from the chaff.

Ask yourself:

1. Do they have multiple sources for the story (at least two, most three or more)?
2. Is the narrative informative, or implicative?
3. If the issue presents contrasting sides, does it present a quote – or citation of one – from both/all sides?
4. Was the story rushed, or has it been at least updated since publication?  Almost all news stories evolve/grow over time. 
5. Does the story use pronouns or proper names in telling its story? Or is it informal and colloquial?
6. Do they source the story by hat-tipping other journalistic works or original source documents? Doing so shows confidence in a story. Consistency of a story strengthens its veracity.

Even with these standards, mistakes happen. But it doesn’t make for “fake news.” It makes for imperfect, but necessary news. Because they do the hard work we often can’t.

And as a personal note, do you occasionally find a story irritating to read as I do? That’s usually a good sign that you’re being challenged by a news source.

You should be. Stick with it.

#FakeHate #RealNewsHurts

BREAKING: In Wake of Scandal, Sec. Tom Price Resigns

Secretary of the department of health and human services, Tom Price has tendered his resignation to President Trump, say sources in the White House.

In the last couple days, press reports revealed the former budget chief in the House of Representatives was found to have used private charter jets on the government dime. Politico was the first to reveal the excesses on September 19. Since then, the story has only snowballed. They further revealed this week that he also used military jets to fly overseas while the remaining members of his delegation flew commercial flights.

Other flights, among the dozens that are known, included travel to have lunch with his son, and visits with colleagues, outside his official capacity as DHHS secretary.

Upon being exposed for the charter use, Sec Price promised to pay back $52,000 of the roughly $1 million spent, uncovered by the investigation.

President Trump is expected to formally announce the resignation tonight.