The Media’s Interests Are Not America’s Interests




The stories are getting more and more troubling and even outlandish. Every news source is becoming a welcome wagon for leaked everything and anything dealing with Trump. Even “email pranksters” are getting time on CNN, if they provide embarrassing dirt on Trump officials.

The media is enabling the infighting, backstabbing and self-dealing that has marked the Trump White House. They do it because it brings in eyeballs and readers and viewers. In short, it’s profitable for them.



Certainly, President Trump himself feeds the fire, but he does so to create an advantage for himself. Media-savvy Trump plants stories that he can later debunk, or in some way help him.

Now he’s brought in John Kelly to clean up Dodge City, and that’s a good thing. But the press is merrily searching reporter notebooks and every other anonymous source who “is familiar with” every meeting at the White House to undermine Kelly’s task. They’re doing this because (1) they smell blood in the water to hurt Trump; and (2) they want revenge from being called #FAKENEWS and “enemy of the people.”

But in so doing, they’re becoming the very things Trump accused them of being.

Does it help anyone for Sports Illustrated to report that the president called the White House “a real dump?” It’s some anonymous group of people talking to a sports magazine versus a White House spokesperson’s denial. Is it plausible Trump said it? Sure. But it’s #FAKENEWS if it can’t be corroborated, and it’s not news at all since it serves zero purpose other than salacious rumor.

Is there value to hear that two top generals in the administration didn’t trust POTUS during the first weeks of his term? Does that build confidence in a man with the nuclear codes, who has to stand up to Iran, North Korea, China and Russia? Obviously, I’ve had my problems with Trump, and his past statements. But now he is president, and this kind of reporting does nothing but enable America’s enemies (yes, we have enemies) and harm this country.

All of these reports, including the troubling ones about Trump’s involvement in drafting his own son’s statement about a June 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney, are based on “sources familiar with,” or “unnamed sources.” This has been going on for seven months: anonymous sources, and many reports have been modified or outright retracted.

It’s time for it to stop.

The president brought in Gen. Kelly to clean up the White House and stop the leaks. AG Sessions is also focusing on cleaning up leaks. If the administration commits itself to this task (and I trust Sessions and Kelly as serious), shouldn’t the press also be serious?

They have no problem naming names when it suits their purpose (like outing CIA agents). But they protect their anonymous administration sources because it serves the media’s interests.

The media’s interests are not America’s interests.

It’s time we held the media accountable for their motives and demand they expose their sources. The First Amendment only protects them from the government. It doesn’t protect them from the people who buy their product.

We must demand the media prove their allegations by naming names. It’s time for them to put up or shut up. Otherwise, they will have become exactly what the president said they are.

This post also appears in The New Americana

Wasserman Schultz Fleeing Aide is a HUGE Story, So the Liberal Press is Killing It





The arrest of Pakistani Imran Awan as he tried to flee the country is an enormous story. I’ve followed it since February, when the House of Representatives Sergeant-at-Arms banned Awan and his brothers from the House computer network.

The Awans provided IT consulting for 40 Democratic members of Congress. They had full run of the networks, computers and files of these elected officials and their staffs. The amount of damage they could have done (and now it seems likely, did do) is inestimable.

In March, I wrote:

Now we’ve learned that Imran Awan had passwords and complete access to Wasserman Schultz’s iPad at the time of the DNC email hack. FBI Director James Comey said the DNC did not cooperate with the agency’s investigation, according to The Hill.

And although other Democrats in Congress have fired the Awans, Wasserman Schultz has retained Imran as an “adviser.” Why is she protecting the lead suspect in a criminal probe?

The Awans have links to a Hizbollah-related fugitive, and they’re deeply involved in money scams, extortion, and threats of violence. Now the FBI raided Awan’s home and customs officers arrested him at Dulles airport trying to flee.

But this morning, the Washington Post (“Democracy dies in darkness”) has no mention of it on its home page. New York Times: Nada. New York Daily News: fuhgetaboutit. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN: Nope.

Fox News ran the story.

Wasserman Schultz has been completely uncooperative with this running investigation.

Meanwhile, the counsel for Wasserman Schultz, the former Democratic National Committee chairwoman, recently began negotiating with Capitol Police for access to her laptop in the case. Until this point, she had resisted USCP efforts to look at her computer – even suggesting “consequences” for the agency if the computer was not promptly returned.

The affidavit filed by the feds only references “a scheme to defraud a Congressional Federal Credit Union.” But that’s not why the House Sergeant-at-Arms banned the Awans from the government network. It’s not why Schultz kept Imran Awan around as a “consultant.”

There’s more to this story, and probably a lot more. But the leftist media would rather report on Trump’s tweets, his speech to the Boy Scouts, and who will play 007 in the next James Bond movie.

And they wonder why nobody in America trusts the main stream media.

The Media’s Negligence in Charlie Gard’s Injury Needs No Further Proof

Little Charlie Gard is going to die in a British hospital if nothing is done to try to save him. The media cares more for its own already-tarnished reputation than his life.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Their negligence is self-evident. Even Pope Francis corrected a horrendous spiritual error by his own Pontifical Academy, that sided with the British government. President Trump tweeted “we would be delighted to” help, if we can.

All morning, the press continued its blanket coverage of Trump’s tweets about wrestling and “fraudulent news network.” There was barely a mention of the humanitarian offer to a dying baby’s family. When it was mentioned, the networks used the dry news language of a pool report (relying on the AP). They focused on little Charlie’s condition, and the reaction of  the pope.

Deeper discussions of the “moral and political questions about the role of the state at the end of life” (The Atlantic) angled in on the outrage, and possible schism within the Catholic church.

Really the issue is stunningly simple. A baby is the responsibility and ward of his parents. Period. If this is not so, then a baby is the responsibility and ward of the State and the parents are mere agents of the State.

If we are all agents of the State, then we are not truly free moral agents. Then it follows that the State is the source of all rights, privileges and moral law.

Either we have a free society of citizens who, by their consent, choose and institute a government of men (and women), for various purposes to safeguard freedoms and inalienable rights granted by God. Or we have a society organized by a State to meet goals and effect conditions ordered by the leaders of the State.

In the E.U., citizens have acquiesced to the latter. In America, most cling to the former. President Trump simply echoed the heart of Americans of all stripes when he offered to help, because if the family has the means, and the baby is truly their charge, they should be allowed to care for him in the best manner they’ve chosen, within, of course, reasonable limits that they not harm him worse than his current prognosis.

Charlie Gard’s current prognosis is certain death.

The American media, mostly populated by and led by liberals who in fact agree with the E.U.’s position that little Charlie is a ward of the State and not his own parents, would rather ignore the only pertinent issue in this story. So they avoided it, minimized it, and swept it under the rug.

Their actions are negligent because they care more for their own opinions than the feelings and strong beliefs of most of America.

No evidence besides Charlie Gard is necessary to prove their guilt. Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

Also published at The New Americana

The Media Is Pressing Its Perceived Advantage Too Far

The media thinks it has Trump on the ropes. My money is on Trump to beat them at their own game every time.

Beleaguered White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer conducted a press briefing today the media finds reminiscent of his first appearance behind the podium on January 21, albeit better attired. It was a short, terse, and quickly-ended affair that left most of the reporters in the room feeling rather smugly triumphant at having driven Spicer from the room.

They are pushing their perceived advantage too far.

“What I’m telling you is, is that the reason the president is frustrated is because there’s a perpetuation of false narratives, a use of unnamed sources over and over again about things that are happening that ultimately don’t happen, and I think that is troubling,” he added moments later. “Thank you guys very much. I appreciate it.”

With that, a visibly frustrated Spicer ended his first briefing in more than two weeks after just 30 minutes, cutting the session shorter than usual.

The anti-Trump press feels that they have the advantage. They feel that the momentum and the rhythm of news has changed, and that they are dropping 5:30 p.m. Friday bombshells now, not President Trump.

Instead of focusing on Trump’s first foreign trip and list of notable firsts, that Spicer covered in his comments (which the Washington Post mocked), when questions opened, they pounced right on the Kushner story that WaPo broke Friday.

Phil Rucker asked if Trump knew that Kushner was trying to set up a secret communication channel with Russia in December.

“You’re asking if he approves of an action that is not a confirmed action,” Spicer replied.

WaPo reacted with incredulousness.

The Post reported Kushner’s effort on Friday, and the White House did not deny the report or even cast doubt on it. In fact, surrogates including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly and counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway seemed to validate the report by insisting publicly over the next few days that back channels are common, appropriate and good.

How many times has the establishment media, relying on unnamed sources “close to the White House,” or “familiar with the investigation” (any number of euphemisms for “anonymous” fit here) had to modify or retract its version of events? How many “bombshells” have turned out to be duds?

But they now assume that because the White House and the president has not responded to their report, or directly denied it, that it must be true.

Now Spicer is suggesting that the report might be inaccurate?

No. Spicer is suggesting that the media has in the past, and continues to do so, reported inaccurate, misleading, and even pernicious and damaging reports based on anonymous sources. An “unconfirmed action” means that the press is obligated to prove its claims before they go and ask for a reaction as if it’s fact.

Then WaPo had the gall to attack the Fox News report contradicting its version–claiming it wasn’t Kushner, but the Russians who suggested the use of a secure line for a back channel–because the Fox report “carried no byline” and “was based on a single, unnamed source.” Pots and kettles are laughing all the way to Tipperary on that howler.

“Can you give us an example of fake news, Sean?” asked CNN’s Jim Acosta. They were just goading him at that point. Spicer cited the example of Trump’s hidden earpiece being misreported as rudeness at the G-7. He didn’t have other examples.

(Note to Spicer: Carry a deck of index cards in your pocket with instances of inaccurate or totally fake media reporting. When asked to cite examples, pull it out, fan it dramatically, hold one to your head like Carnac the Magnificent, and then read it. They’ll never ask again.)

The media needs to be careful and look outside their bubble before they go “full frontal” attack on Trump. They need to realize how distrusted they really are in America where most liberals believe Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee and Bill Maher before they fully trust CNN, MSNBC, or the Washington Post. They also need to realize that those same media sources are completely mistrusted by most Trump fans, who would rely on Alex Jones or Breitbart before Fox News.

Trump’s enemy is, and has always been, the main stream media. He will not quit or acquiesce in any way, and each attack they make will bring a more powerful counterattack. The media thinks it has Trump on the ropes with all these “bombshells.” My money is on Trump to beat them at their own game every time.

Of Course There’s Collusion

Without question, there’s collusion between campaigns, the White House and outside influencers, even foreign governments. It’s just not Donald Trump, the greatest opportunist to ever lift his leg and mark his territory in politics.

There’s little to know about Trump that’s not already in the sunshine, folks–except maybe his tax returns, but really they only confirm what we already know. In business, Trump would take a check from the Bank of Satan signed by Lucifer himself, if it could be cashed. He’d take Russian money, Chinese money, American money, Saudi money. If you look up the word “fungible” in an economics textbook, Trump’s picture graces the page.

If those who write Trump checks to build or brand buildings attach extraneous things–conditions–to the money, like “we want to influence you” or threats “we’ll expose thus and so,” they’re, frankly, stupid to believe Trump will live by those. Donald Trump might be the singular most unblackmailable person on Earth. Mostly because he doesn’t care and doesn’t leave any daylight between the truth and lies–it’s kind of like a permanent twilight to him.

The Russians are smarter than to believe they can influence Trump directly through collusion, because it takes two parties to collude. The Russians do what they do–it’s obvious they wanted to influence the election and tried their best (Trump would have won anyway). But Trump does what he wants to do, and if it happens to play to the Russians, that doesn’t make it collusion.

Hell, Trump won the Republican nomination and did it without colluding with the Republican Party. He managed to get then-Chairman Reince Priebus to do his bidding, but then repeatedly turned and embarrassed the party, the RNC, and his campaign staff. Trump didn’t even raise his own campaign funds (he sold hats), the RNC did it for him.

If you want to look for collusion, look at Hillary Clinton and the DNC. She colluded, and you can’t blame Wikileaks for knowing this. Like Trump’s tax returns, it only confirmed what we already knew.

Or look at the media, through the campaign and even now.

Rush Limbaugh defends Trump for things I personally wouldn’t defend, but he’s also right about many of the facts of collusion. The media has its cabal of government and non-government sources, and they all collude to bring Trump down.

“All these deep state career government people, ex-Obama people that are civilians now? We don’t know,” he said. “But it is a lot of people, and there isn’t any evidence. There’s none! … Not only is there no evidence, there’s nothing to suggest the need of a special counsel. They can’t even find a coverup to cover up the fact that there’s no evidence. What is the cover-up?”

The fact is, there’s no need for a special prosecutor, because there’s no evidence of a crime by the White House. Sure, they might dig up enough evidence for a crime by some figures tied to Trump. And yes, a thousand times, Trump brought the entire situation, single-handedly, upon himself.

But as with all things the Opportunist-In-Chief does, he’ll come out smelly but scot-free and go on with life. He’ll leave the mess for others to pick up.

Then there’s a whole litany of Obama’s collusions, foreign and domestic–in Israeli elections for absolutely certain, and probably with Russia. The media was mostly silent on that, colluding to portray Obama in a heavenly light.

There was almost certainly collusion between Obama, the main stream media, the Clinton campaign, and who knows what other sources during the campaign and investigations into Hillary. An independent congressional commission might uncover all that (which a special counsel likely won’t touch), if congress ever set one up.

There’s still collusion between Democrats gunning for Trump and the media. Democrats are using polling to determine whether to go forward with impeachment. Public opinion polls are influenced by news coverage, and news coverage is controlled by the media. Do you think the media is unbiased in wanting an impeachment? They’d love it and pre-empt everything for 24/7 coverage.

None of this affects President Donald Trump, who merrily goes along blaming the media for his personal woes, which are mostly that the media won’t say nice things about him. He is unconcerned that he called Comey a “nutjob” to the Russian foreign minister. I expect he’ll admit he said it, after denying it first.

There’s plenty of collusion to go around. But with Trump, it takes two parties to form a conspiracy, and proving that Trump, the ultimate promise-breaker, ever conspired (then followed through) to do anything with anyone is a leap beyond the facts of his 45-year public life.

Having Your Russian Trump Cake And Eating It Too

Smart Democrats are running from their Trump Russia narrative faster than Usain Bolt, because they realize they can’t have their cake and eat it too. But the main stream media is trying to eat the Russian Trump cake and have it too. They can’t demand to be taken seriously and be so wrong at the same time.

Let’s strip this down to the facts.

  • The Justice Department, under former President Obama, sought a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant for international calls from Trump Tower and Trump associates in mid-2016. Most DOJ FISA warrants are summarily approved, but this one was likely deemed too broad and controversial, and denied by the FISA judge.
  • The FBI sought another FISA warrant in October, which was narrowed to specific individuals: Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. That warrant was granted.
  • Former DNI James Clapper claimed there was no FISA order for surveillance on the Trump campaign (technically true, but disingenuous and evasive).
  • Clapper, in the same Meet The Press interview, claimed that the intelligence community found no evidence of collusion between Trump, his campaign, and the Russians.

Now let’s talk presuppositions. Two poles of possibility emerge.

A. Obama’s IC and DOJ are infallible and incorruptible

There was enough evidence of the possibility of collusion and a smoke/fire relationship with Russia for the FBI and the intelligence community to mount a months-long investigation and continue that investigation past the election right through Trump’s inauguration.

ThinkProgress reporter Justin Salhani took this position last week. If the FBI tried twice for a FISA warrant, there couldn’t possibly be a political motivation behind it, right?

If that’s the case, then it provides some of the most compelling evidence yet that the intelligence community believes there was direct communication between the Trump campaign and allies in Russia. Democratic lawmakers and conservatives are calling for the release of any evidence that might have provided the basis for a FISA warrant.

B. It was a political hit job of Watergate proportions

Even Buzzfeed, a veritable fount of unverified and presumed-fake Trump allegations, expressed doubts about the snow-white-purity of Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s motives.

Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence. Among the Intelligence Committee’s rank and file, there’s a tangible frustration over what one official called “wildly inflated” expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation.

They’re lowering expectations after they (the Democrats) themselves raised them. Now Democrats have been caught trying to blow thick black smoke and yell “fire!” where there’s only a whiff there to find.

If the president hadn’t called out the rumor-mongers and conspiracy hacks in his usual Trumpy Twitter fashion, this investigation would dog him for years. But now they’ve got to put up or shut up.

Either the investigation has or is about to yield something damning, or, people are going to buy into the fact that it was a political hit job, a fishing expedition of enormous proportions to find anything with which to destroy the Republican candidate and President-elect before he took office. That’s the stuff of Nixon monkeying with the South Vietnamese, or breaking into the DNC’s Watergate offices.

Given that: (a) The CIA helped cover for Benghazi; (b) DOJ under Eric Holder papered over Fast & Furious gun walking; (c) FBI Director James Comey swerved like Tony Stewart avoiding a wreck to not indict Hillary, only to reopen the investigation days before the election; and (d) his former boss Loretta Lynch had a not-so-secret tryst with Bill Clinton to seal the deal, nobody can claim that the FBI or the intelligence community is immune from politics.

There appears to be more evidence of the hit job possibility than the smoke/fire scenario.

A report by Circa indicated that the FBI and counterintelligence agents quickly found no evidence of collusion using traditional investigative techniques, and moved on.

Agents were examining allegations of computer activity tied to Russia..  Very quickly, they concluded the computer activity in question involved no nefarious contacts, bank transactions or encrypted communications with the Russians, and likely involved routine computer signals.

The towers are home to Trump’s business, personal residence and then-campaign headquarters.

The dangerous gamble

Journalist Matt Taibbi offered an arched eyebrow in Rolling Stone over the whole “we better find something” problem Democrats have painted themselves into. They’ve placed all their eggs into this Russia basket, and the basket is about to be thrown into a burning dumpster.

But the manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right. Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald Trump.

The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett’s shirtless representation of Putin palling with Alec Baldwin’s Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban smart set.

The liberal media is all-in on the Russia story. They’ve bet their credibility on it along with Democrats and likely deep moles in the administration and intelligence community. If there’s something to report beyond unsupported allegations, it’s going to have to come out completely and soon. But it appears there’s nothing there at this point.

If there’s any truth to the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian state to disrupt the electoral process, then yes, what we’re seeing now are the early outlines of a Watergate-style scandal that could topple a presidency.

But it could also be true that both the Democratic Party and many leading media outlets are making a dangerous gamble, betting their professional and political capital on the promise of future disclosures that may not come.

And here we are. If there was something there on November 7th, it would have come out. If it was there January 19th, it would have come out. They’re betting on a losing proposition. If there’s a Watergate-style scandal brewing, it might not be against Trump, but against those who tried to topple him.

Taibbi saw the writing on the wall.

But what if there is nothing else to find?

Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don’t normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.

In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn’t, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn’t have evidence to go on.

Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn’t tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?

The media war may be over

The entire main stream media establishment could find itself looking like Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone’s vault. A huge buildup, massive expectations, only to find an empty room.

“So as the program is unfolding, and it becomes more and more likely that I’m not going to find anything, there was a terrible, terrible sinking feeling, ‘My God, the whole world is watching,'” Rivera said.

When there’s nothing there, the media can’t have their cake and eat it too. They can’t say “we built this up and obsessed over it, but now you have to take us seriously.” Taibbi summarized this nicely.

If that’s the case, there are big dangers for the press. If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

It worked during Trump’s campaign, and it’s about to happen in his presidency. The media war might be over, and Trump may have already won.

The AP Assigned 5 Reporters To Cover Trump’s Worthless Trademarks

In 2008, then-Senator Obama received tens of thousands of dollars (that we know about) from Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Washington Post barely reported it, focusing on the RNC’s reaction more than the violation itself.

Now the AP is reporting that the Chinese government has preliminarily approved 38 trademarks requested by Donald Trump’s business interests–all requested before he took office.

Ethics lawyers across the political spectrum say that if Trump receives any special treatment in securing trademark rights, it would violate the U.S. Constitution, which bans public servants from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress. Concerns about potential conflicts of interest are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist Party.

Seriously, what quid pro quo could President Trump have given the ruling Communist Party in China to get them to approve trademarks which are–in Chinese business practice–worthless? Maybe the Chinese government is attempting to curry favor with Trump by plying him with “special treatment” that if the president acknowledged, he’d be pilloried for involving himself in his business interests.

In any case, what could Trump do to stop China from approving trademark requests that were filed in mid-2016? Nothing. It’s most likely that the Chinese bureaucracy gathered all the Trump requests into a bundle and approved them because–well Trump is certainly the best known person on the planet, isn’t he?

Is it special treatment when a foreign government approves something they were going to approve anyway? Good luck proving this one, constitutional legal eagles.

But here’s an example of special treatment and quid pro quo that we can prove. Obama, on his last day in office, had his outgoing Secretary of State release $221 million to the Palestinian Authority unity government, which includes Hamas in Gaza, over the hold Congress put on the money.

In 2008, a Gaza-based call center raised money for Obama’s presidential bid. Their goal of statehood was never realized, but it’s not for lack of the guy they wanted to be president’s trying. The American press glossed over all of this and explained it away as youthful support of a candidate, exuberance, or simply “oops.”

Smell the double-standard, people. The AP assigned five reporters and a Shanghai-based researcher to this nearly 1000-word story. The Obama story about two Gazans who illegally contributed $33,000 to Obama in 2008 (listing “Ga.” as their state) merited 333 words and one reporter, with no followups.

And they keep saying that they’re not the opposition party.

Note To White House Press: You’re Not In Charge

Erick calls the Washington establishment press the “circle of jerks.” They’ve been told they’re in charge so long that they believe it. They’ve been kowtowed to, built up, stroked and boosted so much by so many that they really think they are a ruling class.

To wit: CNN wailed in lamentation on the dearth of on-camera press briefings, after briefly acknowledging “But it’s up to [Press Secretary Sean] Spicer, not the press corps.”

“We have noticed the lack of on-camera briefings,” Sabrina Siddiqui of The Guardian newspaper told CNN. “It is not normal to have this many ‘off-camera gaggles.'”

“We definitely have noticed,” said George Condon, National Journal’s White House correspondent, who doubles as a historian. “I can’t say that I am very surprised, though. They have been predicting something like this all through the transition.”

“Sean Spicer clearly was under orders to ‘shake up’ the briefing,” he added. “Fortunately, the more radical changes — like tossing the press out of the White House and eliminating the daily briefing — didn’t happen.”

It’s not “normal.” It’s not “established practice,” said some cardboard cut-out labeled “random expert who agrees with us” who CNN dug out of some producer’s speed dial or an archived story from 2008.

CNN’s whole argument carries the academic and intellectual weight of an offended professor stumped by a student’s question.

Televised briefings are valuable to TV networks for obvious journalistic reasons. Having on-camera answers is increasingly important for digital and social newsrooms too.

Oh. The answer is obvious. It’s “journalistic” reasons. Because it’s not journalism to simply quote Spicer on the record with words like newspapers do. No, no. It’s ratings. Televised briefings bring ratings, especially from the Trump White House.

This is the strategy I believed Trump would use if he really wanted to hurt the press. Maybe the press war isn’t as fake as I believed. Taking TV appearances off the daily menu will hurt CNN in a real way. There’s only so much hay they can make with recycled talking heads, panels and breathless reports of what Trump tweeted today.

Denying the TV networks fresh meat is actual war on them, and they don’t like it one bit. They thought they were in charge, but they’re not.